►
From YouTube: Boulder Planning Board Meeting 7-25-19
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
B
Second,
all
in
favor,
okay,
so
unanimously
passed
four
minutes.
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
public
participation.
This
is
the
part
of
the
meeting
where
members
of
the
public
can
come
up
and
address
Planning
Board
on
items
that
are
not
part
of
our
public
hearing
items
tonight
that
one
public
hearing
item
that
we
have
is
a
conversation
around
used
tables
and
use
standards,
and
we
have
two
folks
signed
up
and
if
there
any
other
folks
who'd
like
to
speak
to
us
about
something.
B
That's
not
on
these
tables
that
you
can
signed
up
over
here
with
the
board
secretary
Cindy.
So
we've
got
two
folks.
First
one
is
Theresa
party
and
second,
one
is
Tina.
Bogan
come
on
up
the
routine,
as
you
guys
know,
is
you
got
three
minutes
and
then
the
light
changes
to
yellow
you're,
getting
close
to
the
end
and
red
is
time
to
wrap
it
up.
D
Evening,
my
name
is
Sheree
sapote
and
I
live
in
the
Ponderosa
neighborhood
number
73
I
was
forced
to
move
there
after
the
violet
crossing
development
across
the
street.
In
my
handout,
you'll
find
information
that
was
given
during
community
engagement
meetings
that
the
neighborhood
attended
on
sheet1
are
amazing,
single-family
homes
that
we
were
initially
pulled
on
sheets.
Two
and
three
are
the
cost
of
ownership
for
Habitat
for
Humanity
homes,
listing
no
more
than
seven
hundred
and
ninety
five
dollars
per
month
now
I'm,
finding
all
the
pain
that
$1,200
more
a
month
for
housing.
D
She
for
is
the
flood
protection
protection
analysis
showing
the
West
End
is
more
likely
to
flood.
The
government.
Encroachment
is
laying
on
the
backs
of
boulders
most
poorest
residents.
One
of
my
neighbors
did
through
the
dumpster
and
finds
two
items
and
cleans
them
up
and
sells
them
at
yard.
Sales
to
make
money
to
get
by
I
have
another
neighbor
that
didn't
have
heat
all
last
winter.
In
his
trailer
we
have
been
encouraged
to
voice
what
we
went
for
the
Ponderosa.
We
want
single-family
homes,
please
without
shared
walls.
D
D
Why
can't
we
build
at
these
spaces
instead
of
destroying
the
small
buffer
on
the
west
side
before
the
rosewood
neighborhood
was
built,
the
city
promised
not
to
build
here
now
they
want
to
add
more
housing,
crowding
us
in
on
land
that
absorbs
rain
during
storms.
This
plan
is
making
the
Ponderosa
place.
We
don't
want
to
live
in.
We
asked
please
please
for
promises
to
be
fulfilled.
We
asked
for
just
compensation
of
our
trailers.
Please
keep
that
in
mind
when
you
see
the
plan
come
soon.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
E
Hello,
my
name
is
Tina
bogan
I'm,
a
resident
at
Ponderosa
number
59
as
well
so
I'm
just
going
to
talk
about
the
site
plan
a
little
bit
as
this
plan
that
the
residents
never
asked
for
moves
forward.
The
residents
that
Ponderosa
that
wish
to
stay
in
their
mobile
homes
have
no
security.
We've
been
promised
from
the
beginning
that
we
can
stay
as
we
are
if
we
wish
to
or
if,
for
whatever
reason
you
don't
qualify,
then
you
can
stay
as
you
are.
E
So,
as
this
project
moves
forward,
there's
been
so
many
things
that
are
subject
to
change
and
we're
not
feeling
very
trusting
in
the
city
that
they're
going
to
fulfill
that
portion
of
it.
We
were
told
in
a
community
meeting
from
city
staff
that
the
zoning
would
never
change,
and
here
we
are
with
that
about
to
happen.
We
were
told
that
we
didn't
need
to
worry
about
it,
because
we
could
write
amendments
into
that
zoning
and
now
we're
being
told
that's
not
even
going
to
happen.
So
many
many
statements
have
been
subject
to
change.
E
E
E
One
word
that
they
never
used
with
us
through
this
project
was
redevelopment.
We
were
under
the
assumption
that
this
would
be
a
one-for-one
exchange
kind
of
leading
us
to
believe
or
led
us
to
believe
that
if
you
wanted
one
of
these
habitat
homes
that
you
could
tell
your
trailer
to
the
city
use
that
money
for
a
down
payment,
they
take
the
trailer
out
and
put
the
new
habit
at
home
kind
of
right
in
where
you
were
now.
That's
not
happening
either.
So
as
it
stands,
it's
duplexes
when
we
were
pulled
as
a
community.
E
The
one
thing
we
asked
for
not
to
happen
was
apartment
buildings
or
duplexes.
So
you
can
imagine
our
surprise
when
the
site
plan
came
out
and
it
was
almost
all
duplexes
with
no
yards
a
quarter
of
the
parking
spaces
that
we
have
now
so
I
just
feel
like.
We
are
really
being
asked
to
give
up
a
lot
too
for
less
and
it
just
it
saddens
me
that
it
started
out
as
this
great
project
for
Ponderosa
and
it's
turned
into
something
completely
different.
So
it
just
says
this
moves
forward.
E
I
just
want
you
to
ask
yourselves:
is
all
this
collateral
damage?
That's
going
to
happen
to
the
people
that
have
been
living
there
for
35
years,
some
of
them
worth
it?
Is
it
really
worth
it
when
there's
nothing
wrong
with
Ponderosa
to
date,
we're
all
for
new
infrastructure
or
whatever
the
city
wants
to
do
with
that,
but
to
displace
people
to
make
more
affordable
homes
just
makes
no
sense
to
me
at
all
makes
no
sense.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
A
B
Okay,
so
unless
anyone
else
would
like
to
talk
to
us
about
something,
that's
not
on
the
agenda
tonight,
we'll
move
into
a
discussion
of
dispositions,
Planning,
Board,
cobs
and
continuations
we've
got
to
call
up
items,
one's
a
floodplain
development
permit
and
the
other
one
is
a
final
platformer
II
project.
Is
there
any
interested
in
asking
questions
or
talking
about
this
I.
C
C
The
final
platform
I
would
like
to
ask
a
question
of
staff
and
okay
you're
here
so
I
in
looking
at
the
material
we
were
supplied,
it
seems
quite
similar
to
what
we
dealt
with
previously
there's
one
question
I
had,
and
that
is
that
there's
a
narrow
portion
of
the
somme,
I
Drive,
that
that
sort
of
takes
a
jog
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
dimensions
of
that
were,
as
had
been
previously
discussed.
Those.
H
B
Okay,
unless
anyone
else
has
another
lingering
question,
we
can
move
into
item
5a,
which
is
our
public
hearing
item
for
the
night,
which
is
consideration
and
recommendation
to
City
Council
of
a
draft
ordinance
amending
title
nine
Landy's
code
to
update
the
use,
standards
and
use
table
associated
with
certain
districts
in
the
federally
designated
opportunity
zone
areas,
we'll
start
with
the
presentation
by
staff
and
then
we'll
have
questions
from
planning
board
to
staff
and
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
on
this
project
and
then
we'll
have
our
deliberations.
Take
away.
Carl,
good.
H
Evening
board
members
tonight
we'll
be
talking
about
some
code
changes
that
are
proposed
to
the
use,
standards
and
use
table
of
the
land
use
code,
with
particular
emphasis
on
the
opportunity
zone,
which
is
in
the
northwest
portion
of
the
city
of
Boulder.
These
are
changes
that
were
requested
by
the
the
City
Council
and
we've
had
discussions
since
basically
December
2018,
moving
forward
with
council,
and
we
had
with
the
Planning
Board
about
this
in
May
at
a
discussion
about
the
use,
standards
and
table
project,
but
a
portion
of
this
being
the
opportunity
zone.
H
I
Great
thanks,
Carl
and
good
evening
board.
The
purpose
for
tonight's
meeting
is
for
the
Planning
Board
to
provide
a
recommendation.
The
City
Council
on
the
following
number
one:
an
ordinance
amending
the
land
use
code
to
update
the
use
standards
associated
with
this
and
zoning
districts
of
the
opportunity
zone
consistent
with
the
previous
moratorium.
Ordinance
number
eight
three
one
four
and
to
ensure
development
consistent
with
a
Boulder
Valley,
Comprehensive
Plan,
then.
I
The
boundary
is
in
blue
to
the
south,
is
Arapaho
Avenue
to
the
east.
I
believe
is
55th
Street
and
Airport
Airport
Road
north
is
diagonal
highway
into
the
West,
is
28th
Street,
so
there's
a
variety
of
zoning
districts
within
the
opportunity
zone.
These
include
industrial
zones,
business
zones,
residential
zones,
mixed-use
public
zones
and
agricultural
zones
and
we'll
walk
through
some
of
the
proposed
changes
for
each
sewing.
District
group
coming
up,
and
one
thing
to
know,
is
that
the
proposed
changes
would
apply
to
these
zoning
districts
citywide.
I
So,
for
some
background
on
February
of
this
year,
City
Council
adopted
an
emergency
moratorium
ordinance
to
suspend
the
acceptance
of
building
permits
and
development
review
applications.
Then
the
opportunity
zone,
this
stemmed
from
concern
on
how
the
opportunity
zone,
which
is
a
federal
program,
could
incentivize
development
projects.
That
would
be
inconsistent
with
the
newly
adopted
boulder
valley.
Comp
plan,
which
was
last
adopted
in
2015
council,
also
requested
staff
to
provide
a
narrow,
focused
zoning
analysis
of
the
youth
table.
I
A
chapter
nine
six
in
order
to
ensure
that
inconsistent
development
with
the
BB
C
P
would
not
be
allowed
prior
to
the
removal
of
the
moratorium
also
wanted
to
know
that
at
the
news
table
subcommittee,
which
was
established
by
the
board
last
summer,
has
reviewed
some
of
the
preliminary
changes
over
the
past
few
meetings
and
in
general,
there's
been
some
support
for
the
idea
of
a
limited
use
category,
and
then
we've
heard
a
diversity
of
opinions
on
specific
changes.
That
council
has
requested.
I
I
I
Sales
Crowell
mentioned
we
presented
an
initial
analysis
to
council
on
April.
2Nd
I
got
some
additional
feedback
from
them.
They
were
generally
supportive
of
the
limited
use
category
concept
that
requested
further
further
discussion
on
a
May
28th
study
session
around
several
topics
that
will
dive
into
more
Tail
coming
up.
So
these
were
efficiency,
living
units,
single-family
dwelling
units
and
high-density
zones,
residential
zones,
residential
uses
and
business
zones.
I
So,
starting
off
as
part
of
these
proposed
changes,
we're
also
recommending
a
new
limited
use
categories,
part
of
the
use
table
code
amendment
this
would
create
a
new
land
use
category
between
an
allowed
use
and
a
conditional
use
under
the
terminology
today.
So
a
limited
use
would
be
an
allowed
use
up
to
a
certain
special
land
use
attribute.
I
It
could
be
a
square
footage,
maximum
or
other
requirement
for
a
location
on
a
site,
for
instance-
and
this
follows
is
the
current
logic
in
the
code
itself
today-
we're
under
the
specific
use
standards,
for
instance,
in
this
example,
financial
institutions
have
a
limitation
of
a
ground-floor
percentage
in
a
building.
It's
that
same
those
same
concepts
to
be
rolled
into
a
new
limited
use
category.
I
The
Israel
will
be
converted
to
limitations
and
an
L
and
the
table,
and
again
this
helps
us
to
avoid
having
to
add
new
letters
and
the
future
or
add
new
additional
lines
to
the
table
helps
us
to
be
more
concise,
with
the
actual
use
standards
themselves
so
really
quickly
how
this
could
work
as
an
example
at
the
top
of
the
screen
is
the
current
snapshot
of
arts
or
across
studio
spaces.
So
you
can
see
there's
two
different
line-item
entries
for
the
same
use.
The
only
difference
is
that
one
is
for
2,000
square
feet
or
less.
I
So,
in
addition
to
those
consolidations,
we
are
proposing
a
series
of
seventeen
limited
use
categories.
There's
three
overall
overarching
categories.
The
first
one
is
conversion.
So
again
the
G,
the
M
and
the
N
are
being
converted
to
a
new
limited
category.
L
1
l,
2,
O,
3,
L
5
is
simply
a
conversion
of
an
existing
conditional.
U
standard
for
office
and
the
BCS
owns
that's
being
pulled
out
and
directly
into
a
new
limited
use
category.
I
The
second
type
of
limited
uses
are
consolidations
that
we
just
kind
of
walk
through
with
the
art
and
craft
studio
space.
This
is
the
bulk
of
the
limited
use
designations
again,
consolidating
like
uses
that
may
have
a
simple
square
footage
differentiator
and
pulling
those
out
of
the
main
table
and
putting
them
here
with
new
limitations
listed
and
a
separate
part
of
the
code.
I
The
third
type
of
new
limitations
or
third
type
of
limited
uses,
our
new
limitations
that
we
are
creating
with
a
specifical
of
accomplishing
council's
goal
for
this
project.
So
these
are
our
L
15,
L,
16,
L
17
and
the
L
table
just
really
briefly.
L
15
deals
with
new
limitations
on
detached
dwelling
units
and
the
high
density
index.
Few
stones,
L
16,
is
in
regards
to
limiting
residential
uses
and
the
business
regional
zones
and
17
is
in
regards
to
limiting
the
office
uses
in
the
business
zones,
and
we
can
circle
back
to
these
specific
limitations.
I
H
As
Andrew
mentioned,
with
the
the
goals
that
were
outlined
in
the
comp
plan
and
by
counsel
in
mind
to
basically
address
that
housing
imbalance
and
also
look
at
ways
to
protect
and
try
to
get
more
retail,
we
went
through
the
use
table
to
look
at
each
line
and
figure
out.
You
know.
Is
it
really
furthering
a
goal
in
the
comp
plan
and
again,
the
this
project
is,
is
supposed
to
be
narrow
and
focused
on
predominantly
than
the
use
table.
H
So
we
went
through
it
with
that
in
mind,
to
look
at
each
of
the
the
requirements
and
see,
if
is
it
right
to
stay
use
review,
or
should
it
be
encouraged
as
an
allowed
use
or
or
should
there
be
other
limitations
put
on
certain
uses
to
get
the
right
mix
of
uses?
So
this
is
an
overview
of
the
recommendations
that
we
have
that
are
addressed
in
the
attachment,
a
so
in
order
to
encourage
more
smaller
housing
units
within
the
city,
which
would
be
a
more
in
the
affordable
range.
H
We've
looked
at
efficiency
living
units
which
in
in
some
cases
in
the
code,
if
it's
over
twenty
five
twenty
percent
of
the
number
of
units
on
a
site
it
requires
use
review.
This
is
something
that's
come
up
at
Council.
A
lot
of
you
know
trying
to
get
smaller
units.
Al
use
are
units
that
are
less
than
475
square
feet
in
size,
so
we
looked
at
a
at
the
table
and
we
wouldn't
be
making
it
more
widely
allowable,
but
we
looked
at
the
places
where
it
required.
H
We
also
looked
at
single
family
uses,
so
they're
generally
allowed
in
most
residential
zoning
districts,
and
if
the
goal
is
to
try
to
increase
housing
capacity
in
the
city
to
offset
the
jobs,
housing
and
balance,
you
know,
maybe
it
shouldn't
be
encouraged
in
the
higher
density
residential
zones.
So
originally
we
had
proposed
perhaps
prohibiting
those
uses,
but
we
didn't
want
to
get
a
situation
where
we
might
see
demolition
of
existing
historic
structures,
and
there
might
be
some
scenarios
were.
H
It
should
be
maintained
as
a
single-family
use
so,
based
on
what
council
has
requested
a
new
use
review
threshold
that
would
basically
say
or
it'd
be
a
limited
use.
I'm
sorry,
aisle
15,
where,
if
you
had
a
single-family
home
as
of
the
date
of
the
first
reading
of
the
ordinance,
you
can
continue
to
use
that
use
and
expand
it
at
will.
But
if
anything
after
that
date,
you
would
have
to
get
a
use.
H
So
we
looked
at
the
business
zones
and
and
drawing
out
of
suggestions
from
councilmembers
we've
proposed
a
restriction
that
would
make
office
uses
in
the
business
zones
a
limited
use,
which
I
believe
is
L
16,
and
it
would
basically
cap
a
building's
floor
area
at
25
percent
of
office.
In
order
to
go
over
that,
you
would
have
to,
you
could
go
up
to
50
percent
if
you
provided
some
on-site,
affordable
uses
on
the
site,
and
this
would
be
done
through
a
conditional
use,
which
is
a
staff
level
review
existing
uses.
H
You
know
that
would
that
are
over.
25
percent
would
just
be
considered
non-conforming,
so
they
could
continue
to
operate
as
they
do
today
unless
they
were
to
cease
operation
for
over
a
year
and
then
the
new
L
standard
would
kick
in.
They
could
also
expand
under
the
non-conforming
use
review
process.
So
another
thing
that
was
suggested
was
in
order
to
address
the
jobs
housing
imbalances,
maybe
capping
the
amount
of
office
that
could
be
allowable
through
use,
review
in
the
residential
zone.
H
H
So
this
would
be
a
new
new
standard
that
would
kick
in,
but
one
thing
we
also
want
to
make
clear
is
based
on
a
request
by
some
council
members
and
concerns
about
the
amount
of
office,
the
rmx
ones
own,
which
is
a
residential
area
surrounding
the
downtown.
There
were
concerns
about
perhaps
there's
you
know
too
many
office
uses
already
in
that
zone
and
that
additional
offices
should
not
be
permitted.
H
So
what
we're
proposing
in
the
ordinance
is
a
prohibition
of
any
additional
offices
in
that
zone,
and
we
looked
at
some
other
zones
and
looked
at
some
other
uses
and
it
seemed
like
some
uses
that
could
potentially
have
impact
on
areas
where
there's
residential
uses
might
be
more
appropriately
reviewed
under
user
view,
rather
than
being
allowable.
So
we
did
make
a
couple
changes
in
the
use
table
relative
to
auto
sales
and
rentals
indoor,
amusement
and
hotel
and
motel
uses
moving
them
from
allowable
to
use
review
uses.
H
And,
lastly,
another
change
was:
we
noticed
that
there
are
some
convenience
retail
uses
in
certain
zones
like
business
zones
and
even
in
the
industrial
zones
where
they
were
either
required
as
a
conditional
use
or
by
use
review
and
with
in
with
the
I
for
trying
to
encourage
more
retail,
we're
proposing
that
those
uses
be
changed
from
either
C
or
you
to
a
to
make
them
allowable.
One.
A
H
So
I'm
gonna
move
on
to
industrial
zones.
So
again
we
just
talked
about
the
convenience
retail
change,
which
is
on
the
the
list
here.
There's
also
some
just
structural
changes
to
the
code.
Again,
this
is
not
new
legislation,
it's
just
a
restructuring
of
the
use
table
related
to
the
size
of
uses
and
when
they
require
use
review.
H
One
thing
we
wanted
to
point
out
is:
we
understand
there
is
a
concern
with
the
jobs,
housing
and
balance,
particularly
in
the
industrial
zones,
and
this
is
something
that's
a
bit
more
complicated
and
we
with
the
I
of
trying
to
keep
this
narrow
and
focused.
We
didn't
want
to
make
too
many
changes
to
office
uses
or
some
other
uses
like
restaurant
uses
in
the
industrial
zones,
because
we
didn't
want
to
create
any
unintended
consequences,
but
we
do
have
upcoming
code
changes
that
are
meant
to
focus
on
these
areas.
H
There's
policies
that
were
passed
specific
to
the
industrial
zones
where
we
wanted
to
you
know,
focus
that
and
also
use
the
East
Boulder
subcommittee
plan
as
a
platform
for
understanding
how
to
best
make
those
changes.
So
we
anticipate
making
further
changes
in
the
industrial
zones
along
those
lines.
H
H
We
looked
at
making
it
an
L
use,
a
limited
use
that
just
says
that
fronting
on
major
streets,
you
have
to
have
a
depth
of
30
feet
of
retail.
Otherwise,
you
can
put
the
residential
on
the
ground
floor,
another
way
to
get
it.
On
the
ground
floor.
We
created
an
exemption
that
if
it's
permanently
affordable
housing,
you
you
it
would
just
be
an
allowable
use.
H
H
Then,
in
on
the
office
uses
I
had
talked
about
this.
This
is
the
L
17
restriction
where
basically
bill
buildings
would
be
capped
at
25
percent
of
their
floor,
a
of
office
uses
and
again
this
is
meant
to
address
the
jobs,
housing
imbalance.
They
could
go
up
to
50
percent
through
a
conditional
use
review
if
they
provided
on-site,
affordable
housing.
You
could
not
go
above
that
there
is
no
allowance
to
do
a
use
review
to
exempt
that.
H
Another
thing
that
we
looked
at
was
in
the
interest
of
avoiding
more
banks
along
some
of
these
active
street
frontage,
like
we
see
in
downtown
that
maybe
that
should
be
expanded
to
other
pedestrian
environments,
so
we're
proposing
that
that
restriction
that
was
passed
several
years
ago
be
applied
to
the
VMS
so
to
the
bt
zones
and
and
the
other
dt
zones
as
well
talked
about
convenience.
Retail
going
from
you
serve
you
to
allowable
use.
H
We
also
talked
about
the
certain
uses
being
converted
to
to
you
serve
you.
So
another
thing
we
wanted
to
point
out
is
similar
to
the
discussion
of
what
I
said
about
the
industrial
zones.
We
have
another
code
change
project,
that's
set
to
commence
when
we
get
through
some
of
these
other
code
changes,
that's
targeted
for
the
Boulder
Valley
regional
center
to
look
at.
How
can
we
get
more
housing
in
this
particular
part
of
the
city,
with
an
emphasis
on
permanently
affordable
housing?
So
that's,
there's
gonna
be
more
changes
related
to
that
in
the
future.
H
Now
we're
gonna
move
on
to
residential
and
mixed
use
zone,
so
I
talked
about
congregate.
Care
talked
about.
Al
use
talked
about
the
detached
dwelling
units
where
they
be
allowed
in
high-density
residential
zones
if
they
existed
as
at
the
data.
The
first
reading
of
the
ordinance,
but
after
that,
if
you
want
to
build
a
new
single-family
home
you'd
have
to
go
through
use
review
and
there
would
be
new
criteria
that
applied
to
that.
K
H
F
So,
even
if
something
has
an
L
in
the
box
and
should
be
approval
by
limited
use,
if
the
number
or
the
area
still
trips
the
the
trigger
for
use
review
like
it's
a
number
of
units,
that's
required
to
go
through
use
review
because
it's
a
larger
project.
The
use
review
standard
would
govern
rather
than
the
L
in
the
box.
I
think.
F
H
A
H
H
H
H
So
this
has
been
a
relatively
new
project,
so
we've
tried
to
get
the
word
out.
You
know
as
much
as
we
can
there's
been
a
number
of
discussions
that
we've
had
since
December
about
the
opportunity
zone
in
the
use
standards
in
it.
It
meshed
into
the
time
period
that
we
were
doing
a
lot
of
public
outreach
through
open
houses
and
things
of
that
nature.
So
we
had
handouts
and,
and
everything
related
to
this
project
talking
about
the
evolution
of
it.
So
we've
had
three
code:
amendment
open
houses
through
the
first
part
of
the
year.
H
We
also
had
the
Watts
up
Boulder
event
where
we
talked
to
people
about
this
project.
We've
also
had
open
and
noticed,
use
table
subcommittee
meetings
to
talk
about
this,
and
we've
also
had
a
number
of
check-ins
and
anyone
who's.
You
know
emailed
us
with
questions.
We've
put
them
on
a
list
to
let
them
know
about
the
changes.
We've
also
met
with
representatives
of
plan
Boulder
we've
kept
the
Chamber
of
Commerce
and
better
Boulder
informed.
We
will
be
meeting
with
them
and
any
other
interested
citizens
on
these
changes.
H
So
that's
what
the
last
bullet
talks
about
we're
gonna
be
working
on
that
and
in
the
coming
months.
As
far
as
this,
we
want
to
pass.
The
recommendation
on
to
Council
will
be
having
first
reading
before
council
on
August
6th,
we'll
be
actually
doing
our
staff
presentation
and
doing
question
and
answers
with
City
Council
on
August
13th,
and
then
the
public
hearing
would
occur
on
August
20th
when
they
consider
the
ordinance.
So
that
concludes
our
presentation.
Happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
Yeah
I
hope
you
can
clarify
for
me
if
I
understood
correctly,
the
proposed
material
that
you've
given
to
us
is
meant
specifically
for
the
opportunity
zone,
but
if
I
understood
correctly,
the
intention
is
to
expand
those
changes
to
the
rest
of
the
city
for
the
relevant
zones
as
well.
Is
that
correct?
That's.
H
Correct
it's
not
necessarily
that
it's
expanding
to
the
other
zones.
It's
just
that
these
zones
exist
outside
of
the
opportunity
zone
exist
around
the
city,
so
the
question
becomes:
if
we
make
these
changes,
does
it
make
sense
to
just
keep
them
in
the
opportunity
zone,
or
does
it
make
sense
to
apply
them
elsewhere,
and
our
thoughts
were
that
these
are
citywide
issues
that
are
identified
in
the
comp
plan
and
therefore
the
changes
to
those
zones
should
apply
citywide
right.
C
Okay,
just
so
I
get
the
logic
there
and
does
this?
Does
staff
feel
that,
with
these
changes
that
the
value
created
to
to
developers
by
the
changes
in
tax
laws
in
the
opportunity
zone
would,
to
a
large
degree,
be
captured
by
the
community,
or
would
there
be
additional
changes
necessary
in
order
to
accomplish
that
as.
H
We
stated
in
in
the
memo
looking
at
the
used
tables
and
looking
at
the
land
use
code
is
an
ongoing
process.
We're
always
trying
to
look
at
through
different
zoning
changes
how
to
implement
the
comp
plan.
So
we
don't
look
at
this
project
as
the
be-all
end-all
to
attain
everything.
You
know
it's
just
it's
trying
to
avoid
in
a
sense
a
worst
case
scenario
like
if
there's
a
major
office
development
that
comes
in
that
today
would
be
allowable
it.
H
Think
we
annotate
that
there
will
be
future
changes.
We're
like
I,
said
in
the
presentation.
We're
gonna
have
a
project
specifically
looking
at
the
industrial
zones
and
how
to
get
more
housing,
potentially
in
those
areas
to
help
offset
the
jobs,
housing
imbalance
in
looking
at
the
boulder
valley,
regional
center
and
looking
at
other
ways
to
encourage
housing
and,
potentially,
you
know
more
permanently,
affordable
housing
in
those
areas.
So
we
we
do
see
this
as
an
iterative
process.
H
J
J
J
You
could
go
ahead.
Thank
you,
so
the
opportunity
zone
structure
as
I
understand
it,
is
going
to
require
well
result
in
assuming
people.
Investors
have
made
been
making
purchases
of
land
rush
of
proposals
to
the
city
because
they
have
a
time
frame
by
which
they
have
to
have
basically
I
guess
register
with
the
federal
government
to
up
to
benefit
from
the
opportunity
zone.
How
would
feature
changes
be
affected
or
be
effectual
if
someone
submits
under
these
rules
and
then
there's
a
sudden
realization
that
something
has
occurred,
that
these
rules
don't
plan
for.
J
H
It's
it's
as
we
do
things
today.
You
know
a
lot
of
times.
The
zoning
changes
that
we're
working
on
are
in
reaction
to
something,
and
we
can.
We
can
do
our
best
to
cut
a
look
at
the
use
table
on
try
to
forecast
every
single
scenario,
but
we
don't
know
ways
you
know,
have
the
ability
to
do
that.
You
know
something
comes
in
with
that.
Wasn't
you
know
really
intended
or
anticipated.
So
we
have
to
react
to
that
and
it
may
not
catch
certain
things.
H
H
K
H
Coordination
now
there's
outreach
going
on
talking
to
you,
know:
property
owners
in
that
area
about
needed,
uses,
and
things
like
that.
So
we
have
a
channel
of
communication
with
our
conference
of
planning
staff
on
that
and
I
think.
Ultimately,
as
we
get
more
towards
adoption
of
a
plan,
we
would
have
a
better
idea
about
uses
and
we
would
explore
that
more
and
then,
ultimately,
when
a
plan
gets
adopted,
there's
an
implementation
plan,
it'll
say
specific
zoning
changes.
H
C
K
H
H
Am
the
code
and
they're,
just
you
know
reorganized:
these
are
more
substitute
changes
that
came
through
discussions
with
the
council,
so
L
15
relates
to
detached
dwelling
units
in
the
high
density
residential
zone.
So
how
do
you
allow
an
existing
one
to
continue
but
disincentivize
a
new
one
from
being
built,
because
the
point
of
the
high
density
residential
zones
is
really
to
incentivize
higher
density
uses
rather
than
single-family?
So
that's
where
L
15
comes
from.
H
Okay,
l
16
relates
to
how
do
you
incentivize
residential,
on
the
interior
of
larger
business
regional
sites,
but
but
get
retail
fronting
on
major
streets.
So
that's
that's
what
this
L
16
is
aiming
at
so,
and
it
also
creates
a
mechanism
for
trying
to
get
firmly
affordable
on
the
you
know
in
this
area,
where
we're
trying
to
get
more
permanently
affordable,
uses.
H
L
17
is,
is
really
one
of
the
bigger
ones
in
that
it's
really
trying
to
manage
the
amount
of
office,
so
it
caps
the
amount
of
office
at
25
percent
of
a
building,
but
it
also
incentivizes
permanently
affordable,
like
you
could
build
more
office.
But
if
you
do
on-site
permanently
affordable
and
then
it
creates
a
conditional
use
criteria
which
are
in
the
standards
of
9-6
which
are
behind
the
use
table
in
attachment
a
that
talked
about
what
you
need
to
meet
to
get
up
to
50%.
J
J
H
Think
the
thinking
is
that
you
know
future
development
will
likely
be
focused
in
the
boulder
valley
regional
center
and
that
something
that
helps
the
retail
in
those
areas
is
more
housing.
So
if
you
can
create
a
zoning
condition
that
gets
your
retail
on
the
ground
floor
but
allows
the
residential
above
or
behind
the
hope,
is
that
over
time
we're
not
talking
like
a
couple
years,
we're
talking
a
longer
time
frame,
you
get
a
critical
mass.
That
would,
you
know,
be
a
more
mixed-use
vibrant
area.
That's
the
thing.
H
F
Karl
sorry
I
was
a
little
incoherent,
but
I
just
want
to
make
this
make
it
clear
to
at
least
me
when
you
you
call
a
limited-use
is
a
by
right
use
right
as
long
as
it
meets
the
single
limitation
now
I
have
saved
residential
has
by
right
uses
in
various
different
residential
zones.
But
if
you
reach
certain
thresholds,
you
have
to
go
to
site
review.
F
Is
it
do
you
feel
like
the
ordinance
has
drafted
in
a
way,
that's
clear
enough
that
it's
not
going
to
encourage
people
to
think
that
they
can
come
in
with
a
project,
that's
larger
than
the
site
review
threshold
as
a
buy
right
project?
Do
you
think
that
that's
gonna
create
any
confusion,
or
do
you
need
to
add
a
sentence
that
says
that,
should
you
should
you
approach
the?
Should
you
come
to
the
city
with
a
proposal
for
a
limited
use,
but
nonetheless
you
have
enough
units
in
it
that
it
would
require
another
process.
H
Mean
they're
the
use
standards
and
the
site
review
standards
are
two
different
standards
so
like,
for
instance,
you
know
we
wouldn't
from
a
legal
standpoint
and
I'll.
Let
you
jump
in
if
I
say
this
wrong,
but
generally
you
wouldn't
disapprove
a
site
review
based
on
the
use,
you're
really
looking
at
all
the
design
parameters
of
it.
The
use
is
a
separate
issue
that
uses
either
allowed
or
required
through
a
conditional
use
or
it's
a
use
review.
One
example
is
the
1440
pine
project.
H
You
know
like
it
required
site
review,
but
we
had
to
look
look
at
it
through
different
lenses.
There
was
the
conditional
use
standards
that
apply
to
the
transitional
housing.
There
was
use
review
standards
that
apply
to
up
the
other
uses,
and
then
there
was
the
site
review
criteria
that
applied
to
the
design
and
configuration
of
the
project.
So
I
don't
think
this
creates
any
anything
that
conflicts
with
that
way
of
looking
at
it.
Okay,.
F
Oh
this,
you
know
any
residential
that
meets
this
limitation
by
right
use
in
the
zoning
district,
so
I
get
the
distinction
between
the
the
use
versus
the
site,
review
standards
and
the
site
review
process,
but
I'm
just
not
sure
it,
because
I
can't
get
through
the
city's
firewall
or
something
and
I
can't
look
at
the
code
to
see
if
that
by
right
use.
Language
is
also
in
just
the
normal
uses.
As
we
see
the
definitions
of
uses
throughout
the
code,
yeah.
L
F
Know
the
a
says
allowed
under
needed
use
table,
but
does
it
say
by
right
anywhere
in
the
definition
of
that
use,
in
that
zoning
district
I
mean
we
could
make
this
go
a
lot
faster
if
I
could
figure
out
how
to
get
my
computer
I
apologize
you've
been
blocked.
It's
been
like
this
for
the
last
two
meetings.
I
just
can't
get
beyond
yeah,
so
any
board
of
Genda.
F
H
Commercial
is
not
broadly
applied
in
the
use
table.
It's
it
really:
that's
generalizations,
there's
retail
and
it's
defined
in
the
community.
They
meet
that
definition.
They're
allowed.
You
know
based
on
how
the
codes
written
when
we
jump
into
commercial,
then
there's
a
variety
of
different
commercial
uses
and
would
have
to
meet
that
definition
of
whether
it's
you
know
an
office
you
know
and
or
other
commercial
type
uses.
So
we'd
have
to
looking
up
the
specific
use
and
see
if
it's
allowed
or
limited
or
I
use
review.
So.
H
I
H
J
Any
benefits
specific
benefit
to
the
community
in
the
sense
of
a
specific
community
benefit
or
some
kind
of
requirement
of
the
developer
I
mean.
It
seems
like
to
me
like
you're,
giving
an
entitlement
to
developers,
and
while
we
might
get
something
in
return
in
the
sense
of
a
lot
of
al
use,
conceivably,
a
developer
right
now
could
get
approval
for
a
hundred
percent
elu
building
by
going
through
use
review.
So
I'm
not
really
it's
very
unclear
to
me
what
the
logic
is
behind,
eliminating
the
youths
review.
J
H
Think
this
particular
code
change
stems
out
of
things.
We've
heard
from
counsel
and
and
maybe
even
planning
board
members
over
the
years
about
how
do
we
get
more
smaller
units,
and
that
may
be.
Our
code
is
potentially
too
restrictive
for
those
types
of
units.
A
couple
years
ago
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
micro
units
and
how
do
we
make
that
more
possible?
So
we
looked
at
this
change
as
a
way
to
how
do
you
incentivize
it
and
encourage
more
of
it
in
our
mind,
yeah,
you
could
change
the
threshold
up
to
50
percent.
H
J
What's
the
orange,
given
the
surveys,
the
city
has
done
of
what
folks
who
commute
in
and
the
missing
middle
say
they
would
like
in
order
to
exchange
where
they
currently
live
for
living
here.
What's
the
what's
the
theory
behind
the
need
for
potentially
huge
increase
in
the
number
of
al
use
of
very
small
units
versus
the
things
people
have
said,
they
are
looking
for
via
single-family
homes
or
duplexes
or
triplexes
I
mean.
H
J
K
Just
wondering
you
know
it
seems
like
wooden
bedroom
apartments
could
just
as
easily
fill
that
space.
So
if
you're
talking
about
projects
that
have
opportunity
for
elu,
it's
not
clear
to
me
that
that's
necessary
displacing
the
potential
for
the
the
single-family
homes.
It
seems
like
maybe
maybe
they're
they're
different
different
animals
in
some
ways,
so
that
that
that
was
one
thing.
That
kind
of
made
me
feel
a
little
more
comfortable
with
it.
But
I
just.
B
B
So
if
you
do
want
to
speak
to
us
and
you
haven't
signed
up,
you
walk
up
to
Cindy
and
ask
her
for
a
little
tease
paper
and
you
can
sign
up
okay.
So
we've
got
two
folks.
Three
folks,
Peter
mayor
speaking
pulling
time
with
Lisa,
Spalding
and
Leonard.
May
1st
12
7
minutes
so
need
to
see.
Lisa,
Spalding
and
Leonard
amazed
hands
hello,
Peter
you're
up!
You
have
three
minutes
the
routine.
You
know.
Is
you
introduce
yourself?
In
your
add
your
address?
N
To
yellow
so
I'm
Peter,
mayor,
13:39,
Hawthorne,
Avenue
I
am
the
co-chair
of
plan
Boulder
and,
as
we
noted
I'm
pooling
time
tonight,
with
Lisa
Spalding
and
Leonard
May.
So
last
Friday
plan
Boulder
sent
you
copies
of
our
comments
to
the
City
Council
on
both
the
large
homes
and
Lots
project
and
the
use
and
standards
tables
project.
N
So
this
evening,
I'm
going
to
be
presenting
three
major
issues
that
we
hope
you'll
consider
as
you
formulate
your
recommendations,
City
Council
on
the
use
and
standards
and
table
changes
in
the
proposed
ordinance
that
will
lift
the
opportunity
zone.
Moratorium
first
issue
is
capturing
some
value
from
the
opportunity's
own
investment
to
increase
our
supply
of
affordable
housing.
City
Council's,
timid
approach
to
capturing
community
benefit
from
the
value
created
for
investors
by
the
opportunity.
Rezone
result
in
a
lost
opportunity
zone
a
little
bit
boldly.
Here.
N
The
moratorium
was
adopted
to
ensure
that
development
within
the
opportunity
zone
is
consistent
within
the
Boulder
comp
plan.
Achieving
more
housing,
affordability
was
the
top
of
the
list
of
focus
areas
when
staff
analyzed
the
current
use
standards.
The
council
is
so
far
ignored
staff
efforts
to
require
a
percentage
of
permanently
affordable
housing
and
many
of
the
land-use
changes
council
safeguarded.
Existing
the
market
raised,
affordable
housing
and
the
opportunity
zone,
but
they
failed
to
ensure
greater
affordability,
a
future
supply,
so
that
could
easily
easily
be
accomplished
to
expand
expanded,
inclusionary
housing
requirements
and
higher
linkage
fees.
N
Many
of
the
proposed
land
use
changes
would
increase
the
value
of
the
effective
properties
by
enabling
a
greater
range
of
uses
and
the
development
potential.
So
we
got
to
encourage
council
to
lift
the
moratorium
only
if
most
of
the
financial
benefits
resulting
from
these
changes
and
from
the
opportunity's
own
tax
breaks
are
dedicated
to
the
housing
is
permanently
affordable
to
lower
and
middle-income
households.
N
Let's
capture
the
value
so
generously
granted
to
us
by
the
this
administration
for
Boulder
the
second
issue
of
major
concern:
it's
a
proposal
to
greatly
expand
the
number
of
efficiency
living
units
in
the
zones
where
they
will
be
allowed
by
right.
We
ask
that
you
recommend
current
regulations
that
count
elu
as
a
half
dwelling
unit
be
changed
so
that
it
is
counted
as
a
full
dwelling
unit.
This
would
help
to
alleviate
serious
problems
with
parking
issues
and
other
impacts.
N
The
affordable
student
housing
that
the
city
envisioned
ll
use
were
consequently
replaced
by
e
L
use,
which
granted
an
extra
75
feet
of
space
and
limited
20%
of
the
buildings
unit.
By
right,
there
is
nothing
to
present
developers
from
constructing
luxury
L
use
which
would
be
lucrative
for
them,
but
would
simply
repeat
the
failed
llu
experiment
from
the
1980s
because
of
the
very
limited
size
of
L
use.
N
The
presumption
for
zoning
changes
should
be
that
one
size
won't
fit
all.
It
would
be
better
to
consider
changes
that
are
desirable
and
then
evaluate
well
where
they
will
work
best.
Decisions
about
citywide,
desired
outcomes
should
be
made
through
a
sub
community
and
neighbourhood
planning
process
that
can
contemplate
the
uniqueness
of
different
areas.
This
truncated
process
effectively
reduces
future
sub
community
the
neighbourhood
planning
to
to
irrelevance.
N
Please
recommend
the
City
Council
delay
the
citywide
application
of
land
use
changes
adopted
in
the
opportunity
zone
until
the
entire
use
standards
and
table
project
is
complete
and
that
any
changes
from
the
East
Boulder
Community
Plan
have
been
incorporated
conclusion.
We
recommend
you
encourage
council
to
ensure
the
use
tables
capture
the
value
created
by
opportunity
zone
designation
for
the
community.
These
are
the
operative
objectives
of
the
opportunity
zone
to
alleviate
financial
distress
for
vulnerable
portions
of
communities,
preservation
and
creation
of
affordable
housing
and
business
space
should
be
the
priorities.
B
F
Well,
first
of
all,
I
just
like
to
say
that
the
youth
table
subcommittee
has
been
this
thing
that
you
and
Brian,
and
and
or
that
Ewan
and
David,
and
now
Sarah
go
off
to
on
some
regular
basis
and
report
back
to
us
about
on
some
kind
of
regular
basis.
So
it's
it's
always
been
kind
of
an
amorphous
thing
out
there
for
me,
but
now
it's
real
and
it's
in
front
of
us
and
congratulations
and
thanks
for
all
the
work
that
you
did
along
with
staff
and
thank
staff
for
all
the
work.
You
did.
F
Keeping
Boulder
is
a
place
where
one
could
still
get
a
tire
changed
or,
or
you
know,
a
vacuum
cleaner
repaired
and
we
put
policy
2.21
into
the
comp
plan,
specifically
to
avoid
the
transformation
of
industrial
light,
industrial
in
particular
areas
to
residential,
because
well,
there
is
such
a
valuable
real
estate
market
for
residential
property
that
given
more
flexibility
and
zoning,
it
would
probably
result
in
residences
replacing
industrial
area.
We
didn't
want
to
see
that,
but
we
talked-
and
this
didn't
get
captured
completely
in
the
policy
2.21,
which
I
can't
pull
up.
F
F
They
have
bike
trails,
they
have
creeks
paths
and
they
have
great
vistas
on
their
outskirts
and
we
didn't
want
to
see
any
of
the
residential
going
in
the
middle.
We
wanted
to
see
the
residential
to
the
extent
that
it
went
in
an
industrial
zone.
We
wanted
to
see
it
going
on
the
outskirts
with
access
to
these
public
pathways,
and
we
didn't
want
to
see
it
displace
any
existing
industrial
and
I.
F
So
if,
if
it's
a
vacant
parcel,
it
can't
go
in
as
a
limited
use,
because
you
have
to
reserve
that
parcel
for
an
industrial
used
to
go
in
first,
but
to
the
extent
that
there
are
parcels
that
have
already
been
developed
as
industrial.
If
you
want
to
add
residential
uses,
they
can
only
be
on
top
over
next
to
and
not
displace
the
industrial
use.
That's
already
there.
J
So
to
two
comments:
one
is
a
response
and
one
is
a
suggestion.
So,
as
a
response,
I
I'm
underst.
We
were
putting
industrial
stuff
aside
and
that's
a
separate
area
of
consideration
because
it's
so
complex
and
precisely
because
we
don't
want
to
undermine
our
what
remains
of
our
industrial
zone.
So
is
this
something
we
could
come
back
to
or
add
to
the
conversation
that's
going
on
about
the
industrial
areas.
B
B
H
That
was
our
recommendation
that
we
try
to
as
a
package
handle
industrial
there.
So
I
like
the
suggestion,
but
I
think
that
could
be
packaged
with
how
do
we
get
more
restaurants
and
industrial
along
with
maybe
some
other
things
to
encourage
residential
and
that
would
all
be
done
together,
but
I
think
it's
a
good
suggestion
and.
K
This
is
a
similar
kind
of
situation.
We've
come
up
with
new
structures
that
are
a
little
bit
easier
to
work
with
and
you've
you've
hit
on
one
of
those
things,
and
even
if
it
doesn't
appear
in
this
ordinance,
it
gives
us
a
chance
to
talk
to
the
east
Boulder
sub
community
planning.
Folks,
as
they
deal
with
the
light
industrial
zones
that
fall
within
that
area
and
the
use
table
subcommittee
can
continue
to
talk
about
it.
K
C
Complete
agreement
with
your
objectives
and
approach
and
to
be
perfectly
blunt,
I
I
wonder
if
we
should
delay
consideration
of
these
other
proposals
until
there
is
a
suitable
consideration
of
the
industrial,
how
we
deal
with
the
industrial
land
as
well,
because
that
is
such
a
an
important
element
of
this
area
anyway.
So
I
think
what
you
said
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
Sarah's.
J
I,
don't
know
it's
gonna
make
a
recommendation,
so
this
is
a
super,
complex,
ordinance
and
I'm.
Perhaps
for
our
discussion,
we
might
want
to
approach
it
semi
piece
by
piece,
starting
with
the
idea
of
applying
the
changes
across
the
city
and
then
specific
to
the
sort
of
broad
changes.
The
ELL
changes,
the
elu
and
the
retail
changes
just
so
that
we
can
sort
of
shape
our
conversation
and
don't
end
up
kind
of
all
over
the
place.
Just
a
suggestion.
Yeah.
B
I
appreciate
the
process
suggestion
we
didn't
really
on
this
one
end
up
with
key
issues
starting
the
way
we
often
end
up
with
them.
So
we
couldn't
do
that.
Let's
first,
like
finish
the
thing
we're
right
now
and
then
we'll
kind
of
look
at
the
process.
I
mean
I.
Also
I
want
to
chime
in
on
this
as
well.
So
I
think.
That's
a
really
great
suggestion.
I
also
think
that
there's
another
piece
that
might
bear
consideration
in
there
and
I
don't
know
the
answer.
B
I
really
mean
consideration,
which
is
the
the
way
the
homes
in
residential
units
in
industrial
or
any
zones
would
relate
to
the
setbacks,
because
a
lot
of
times,
the
interface
that
was
set
up
as
a
setback
for
industrial
zones
is
really
wide
focused
on
buffering
it
from
something
else.
And
if,
if
it's
setback
now
is
against
City
open
space
along
a
creek
corridor,
then
maybe
it
could
be
a
10-foot
setback
or
15
foot
setback,
and
that
would
give
you
additional
land.
B
B
Maybe
that
l18
could
include-
and
you
guys
tell
me
if
this
is
like
conflating
two
different
parts
of
the
code
too
much
but
allowed
and
also
implies
a
different
setback
under
certain
conditions
or
if
that
would
end
up
being
needing
to
be
written
into
a
setback
process
under
a
separate
section
of
the
code.
The
form
section
you're
nodding
at
that,
so
every
snot
I
get
that
so
I
won't
make
it
a
suggestion,
but
I
do
I
want
to
just
kind
of
go
and
record
really
supporting
the
idea
of
trying
to
tackle
that
I.
B
Don't
really
feel
like
I
wanted
to.
You
know
personally
delay
the
this
project
to
do
that.
I,
don't
know
that
we'd
be
able
to
sort
of
with
a
straight
face,
say:
we've
had
any
public
feedback
on
that
at
this
point
you
just
send
this
one
meeting,
so
I
guess
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
we
push
that
into
the
pile
of
things
that
go
into
the
you
know.
How
do
we
make
industrial
zones
of
all
categories
more
walkable
and
exploit
them
for
some
level
of
really
great
residential
opportunities?
I
think
it's
a
good
suggestion,
cool
okay!
C
B
B
Right,
yeah
and
I
guess
I'll
speak
to
that
one.
Just
maybe
take
that
one
first,
because
it's
a
pretty
fundamental
question.
The
projects
started
across
the
whole
city
and
that's
sort
of
the
way
we
began
the
whole
process,
I'm
looking
at
used
tables
and
the
use
standards
across
all
zones
throughout
the
entire
city.
So
that
is
how
the
original
series
of
meetings
were
conducted
with
members
of
the
public
and
with
the
used
table
subcommittee.
B
When
City
Council
asked
us
to
focus
as
a
part
of
their
concerns
about
opportunity
zones
on
opportunities
in
relevant
zones.
That
didn't
mean
we
shouldn't
be
looking
outside
of
the
opportunities
if
you
spent
like
focus
on
the
zones
that
are
included
the
averages,
and
so
we're
actually
doing
what
they
asked
us
to
do,
and
it's
gonna
be
extremely
difficult.
I
think
to
try
to
have
zones
behave
differently
in
different
parts
of
the
city,
especially
since
they're
like
across
streets
from
each
other,
and
things
like
that.
F
I
also
make
it
the
nature
of
having
a
multiplicity
of
zoning
districts.
Is
that
you
don't
tailor
the
district.
You
tailor
the
land
by
applying
a
different
district,
so
you
don't
need
dt2
to
have
a
different
floor
area
ratio
depending
on
the
neighborhood.
You
just
put
dt2
in
a
neighborhood.
You
don't
want
to
be
as
dense
as
DT,
3
or
DT,
4
or
dt5,
and
so
I
feel
like.
F
K
K
H
Ultimately
became
a
conditional
use,
we
had
discussions
with
council,
it
became
this
like
sort
of
like
citywide
or
localized
discussion,
and
there
was
a
big
disparity
between
some
of
the
BC
zones
in
terms
of
their
context.
Okay,
that
was
recognized,
so
we
talked
through
all
the
different
shopping
centers,
and
you
know
it
was
mostly
the
larger
you
know:
scale
shopping
centers
that
they
wanted
the
the
requirements
to
apply
to
it
there.
There
were
a
couple
nodal,
B
C's
that
were
not
like
a
shopping
center,
where
it
didn't
make
sense
to
apply
it
there.
B
J
So
in
many
ways
the
federal
government
imposed
upon
us
a
brand-new
zone
of
the
opportunity
zone
and
the
decision
moratorium
required
that
we
look
at
that
brand-new
zone
through
a
set
of
eyes
intended
to
capture
community
benefit
from
the
opportunity
zone.
It
did
not
require
us
to
apply
any
changes
across
the
city.
J
Also,
the
city
under
233,
the
city,
will
gear
subcommittee,
sub
community
and
area
planning
and
other
efforts
towards
defining
the
acceptable
amount
of
infill
and
redevelopment
and,
from
my
perspective,
from
a
process
perspective.
The
the
oszi
recommendations.
Don't
don't
this
priority?
There
has
been
sort
of
broad
public
input
at
the
open
houses
that
you've
held,
but
to
reiterate
something
that
Peter
mayor
said,
the
neighborhoods
I
think
are
fundamentally
aware
unaware
of
the
changes
that
this
sort
of
very
dry
dusty
use
table
review
process
may
bring
into
their
backyards.
J
C
Well,
not
to
not
to
repeat
what
you've
just
heard
from
Sarah
in
such
a
clear
way.
I
think
the
logic
that
she
used
is
makes
sense
to
me.
Also
I
perceive
these
these
recommendations
that
we're
dealing
with
right
now
as
being
primarily
oriented
to
the
opportunity
zone
and
to
seek
a
manner
in
which
the
added
value
associated
with
the
changes
in
tax
laws
and
so
on,
associated
with
the
opportunity
zone
can
be.
C
Linked
to
the
the
public
benefit,
I,
don't
think
that
going
citywide
with
these
is
appropriate,
because
the
neighborhoods
have
not
really
had
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
them
and,
and
there
are
some
very
significant
changes
that
are,
that
would
be
associated
with
them.
That
would
impact
the
existing
neighborhoods,
and
so
it
seems
to
me
to
be
premature
to
to
make
the
changes
of
the
magnitude
that
we're
dealing
with
without
offers
offering
the
neighborhoods
an
opportunity
to
to
address
them
explicitly.
B
We
have
had
quite
a
few
meetings
on
this
that
have
been
publicly
noticed
and
they
were
not
noticed
in
the
sense
of
it
being
only
opportunity
zones.
They
were
noticed
across
the
city.
So
that's
the
context
just
factually
for
the
work
that
the
city
staff
has
been
doing.
The
opportunities
and
limitation
came
later
in
the
process,
and
so
one
actually
does
not
change
the
zones.
It
might
feel
like
it,
but
it
doesn't
change
any
of
the
attributes
that
are
controlled
by
Zoning
at
all.
B
This
designation,
if
we're
being
clear
in
our
language
and
so
I,
think
both
the
assertion
that
we've
been
given
a
zoning
change
without
our
control
over
it
I
think
the
assertion
that
there
hasn't
been
adequate
public
process,
Johnny
you're
saying
is,
is
unfair,
not
true,
you
might
not
have
been
there,
but
I
think
it's
not
accurate
and
I.
Think
the
third
piece
of
that
maybe
people
are
not
remembering.
Is
that
every
piece
of
property
in
this
area
this
census
tract
is
not
a
piece
of
property.
B
It's
gonna
be
invested
in
by
people
who
are
taking
advantage
of
this
tax
structure,
so
if
you
have
a
house
in
it
or
an
apartment
or
a
condo
or
you
run
a
small
business,
if
you
impose
things
like
hire,
linkage
fees
or
if
you
impose
requirements
for
that,
they
can
no
longer
get
building
permits.
These
are
people
who
are
being
affected.
B
Who
really
are
folks
who
live
here
and
they're,
not
able
they're
not
going
to
take
advantage
of
these
opportunities
own
requirements,
because
the
only
way
for
you
to
get
them
is
to
sell
the
property
completely
and
retain
no
involvement
in
it.
There's
no
way
for
somebody
who
lives
here
to
take
advantage
of
these
right.
So
are
you
connectional.
C
I
maintain
that
the
neighborhoods
have
not
had
a
suitable
venue
in
which
to
offer
their
comments
for
these
changes.
I
understand
that
there
have
been
public.
There
has
been
a
very
significant
public
process
that
has
been
followed
by
the
by
the
in
the
consideration
of
these
so
far,
but
I
don't
feel
that
the
neighborhood's
themselves
have
individually
had
a
chance
to
coalesce
and
consider
these
changes,
and
they
are
potentially
very
significant.
For
example,
the
change
in
the
elu
how
al
use
are
treated
I
think
is.
C
The
city
has,
as
was
mentioned
by
one
of
the
public
speakers.
The
city
has
has
a
history
with
those
and
there's
a
reason
why
they're
dealt
with
in
the
way
they
are
now
and
for
that's.
That's
a
great
example
of
why
neighborhoods
should
be
able
to
consider
those
explicitly
with
respect
to
how
they
might
be
affected
by,
for
example,
a
change
in
efficiency
living
units
that
are
that
are
being
discussed
here
so
I
that
the
public
process
has
not
been
adequate
to
to
address
that.
C
Citywide
I
accept
that
that
it
is
appropriate
to
make
a
recommendation
in
the
opportunity
zone
for
for
the
that
and
other
changes
that
staff
has
as
proposed.
But
I
do
not
think
it's
appropriate
citywide
and
you
know
there's
some
people
may
call
it
a
sneaky
op
zoning.
If
we
were
to
move
into
the
rest
of
the
city,
I
think
it
is
appropriate
for
the
opportunity
zone
for
reasons
expressed
earlier
so
I'll
end
there.
So
I.
B
Just
want
to
ask
moving
forward.
How
is
it
that
you
guys
would
anticipate
us
applying
this?
We
would
have
to
separate
used
tables
one
if
you're
in
the
opportunity
zone
that
you're
not
because
they
really
do
have
policies
that
cross
link
across
all
of
those
zones
and
there's
not
a
mechanism
or
a
structure
in
our
code.
That
allows
us
to
distinguish
between
those
two
areas.
J
Where
were
sort
of
being
asked
this
Solomon
to
make
a
Solomonic
decision.
I
don't
have
an
answer
to
your
question,
but
I
don't
think
that
we
should
just
throw
up
our
hands
and
say
well,
because
we've
been
at
this.
This
thing
has
been
imposed
upon
us
that
we
therefore
should
just
accept
all
these
changes
without
the
kind
of
public
input
that
would,
at
least
from
my
perspective
and
apparently
whom
John's
perspective
be
appropriate
and
I
will
just
point
out
that,
when
someone
brought
up
to
the
city
planner
who's
managing
Alpine
balsam,
this
proposed
changed.
J
She
didn't
know
anything
about
it,
so
that's
a
city
planner
who
didn't
know
about
the
elu
change
and
its
potential
implications
for
that
area
plan
so
I.
My
sense
is
that
we
may
know
about
it
and
plan
Boulder
may
know
about
it
and
better
Boulder
may
know
about
it,
but
I
think
there's
lots
and
lots
and
lots
of
neighborhood
community
hood
groups
that
know
nothing
about
it.
F
F
I
mean
it
just
seems
to
me
like
what
what
you've
been
asked
to
do
is
just
focus
a
project
that
was
a
citywide
use,
table
long
project
to
not
not
not
to
change
the
area
that
the
use
table
applies
to,
but
just
change
the
districts
that
you're
looking
at
to
only
focus
on
the
districts
that
are
in
the
opportunities
on.
So
we
could
get
this
moratorium
lifted
a
little
faster.
Think.
A
F
F
B
In
fact,
I
mean
even
at
the
subcommittee
meetings,
we've
talked
about
how
the
opportunity
zone
kerfuffle
has
actually
slowed
down
the
process.
I
think
we
initially
felt
like
it
would
be
a
little
bit
more
of
a
straightforward
process,
but
that's
shifted
the
scope
for
us
several
times
throughout,
as
well
as
kicking
this
up
into
a
level
of
you
know,
sort
of
political
notoriety,
that's
become
a
lot
more
difficult,
I'm.
F
Also
less
concerned
about
where
these
days
own
district
changes
are
occurring
outside
the
opportunity
zone,
because
if
we
take
the,
if
we
take
the
premise
that
the
tax
benefits
available
to
people
and
the
opportunity
zone,
if
they
buy
property
and
the
opportunity
zone
and
meet
the
program,
requirements
are
going
to
cause
more
turnover
in
the
opportunities
on
and
more
people
trying
to
take
advantage
of
the
use
that's
available
in
the
opportunity
zones.
That
would
be
available
in
that
zoning
district.
F
Whether
it
was
an
opportunity
to
the
zone
or
not
by
the
way,
those
that
supercharging
of
turnover
is
much
less
like
to
happen
outside
the
opportunity
zone.
So
these
changes
are
probably
gonna
have,
in
the
other
neighborhoods
a
relatively
limited
slow-moving
impact,
like
almost
all
development
in
Boulder,
which
happens
at
a
pretty
slow
rate
of
speed
compared
to
how
would
in
other
cities,
yeah.
K
I
think
every
change
that
the
we're
looking
at
here
was
looked
at
at
the
subcommittee
level
by
through
a
lens
of
the
entire
city
and
the
comp
plan
principles.
How
we
and
and
the
original
the
original
intent
was
for
us
to
kind
of
work
in
a
vacuum
without
things
like
opportunity
zone.
But
then
we
found
that
there
were
large
homes.
Large
lots
as
well
potentially
could
have
driven
us
to
kind
of
take
a
detour
and
do
some
stuff
on
use
tables
to
satisfy
that
or
or
community
benefits,
potentially
could
also
impact.
K
So
we
were
finding
that
there
were
things
out
there
that
we
had
to
work
with,
as
we
looked
at
the
zones
across
the
city
wide.
But
we
feel
like
the
the
concerns
that
were
expressed
about
opportunity
zone
were
concerns
about
calm,
Valley
principle
outcomes
that
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
could
get
a
control
over
and
those
would
be
outcomes
that
would
make
sense
anywhere
where,
for
example,
a
business
regional
zone
exists
because
we
are
trying
to
adjust
our
zoning
to
the
current
retail
landscape.
K
Don't
think
that
these
are
revolutionary
changes
to
the
zoning
I
think
they
they
change
the
way
that
we
arrange
the
retail
and
how
much
we
allow
and-
and
it
puts
a
little
tighter
control
on
so
that
we
don't
end
up
with
you
know,
with
things
that
are
very
light
on
housing.
It
also
also
kind
of
has
the
added
benefit
opportunity
zone
didn't
have
to
do
this
of
restructuring
the
use
tables
to
make
them
more
more
nimble.
K
We
now
have
much
easier
to
read
ways
to
to
designate
things
that
don't
necessarily
have
to
go
through
expensive
use,
reviews
which
I
think
will
be
a
benefit
to
the
city
staff
to
the
community.
It
will
save
dollars,
so
I
think
I
think
that
that's
why
it's
it's
it
is
across
zones
and
I
know
you
I
guess
people
can
get
a
little
nervous,
but
when
it
does
apply
to
an
entire
zone
but
I
the
elu
one,
maybe
is,
is
one
example.
K
I
could
see
where,
where
we
could
have
a
debate
and
I,
don't
know
that
the
other
ones
fall
into
that
category.
I,
don't
do
you
have
concerns
about
the
25
percent
or
the
ground
level
or-
and
things
like
that,
because
those
I
think
are
pretty
much
addressing
important
things.
Maybe
the
elu
one
is
a
special
discussion.
I
mean
if
you
have
other
concerns
specific
concerns,
I'd
love
to
hear
about
them
too.
Well,.
C
I
would
like
to
comment
on
that
and
one
one
of
the
changes
which
some
may
regard
as
a
benefit,
and
others
not
is
the
diminution
of
use,
reviews
for
a
variety
of
projects
and,
frankly,
that's
something
that
I'm
less
enthusiastic
about
them
than
some
I
proposed.
I.
Suppose
I
regard
use
reviews
as
a
desirable
I
understand
that
they
expensive
and
add
to
the
cost
of
a
project
at
the
same
time.
C
I
think
that
it's
a
it's
a
good
way
of
dealing
with
the
questions
that
may
be
of
concern
to
a
neighborhood
with
respect
to
impacts
of
projects
and
uses,
and
so
I
I
see,
there's
trade-offs
either
way,
but
at
the
same
time,
we're
proposing
to
eliminate
use
review
from
a
number
of
situations
and
relax.
Some
of
the
the
limits
and
controls
for
various
projects,
and
so
I
can
see
that
that
may
result
in
in
concern
too
to
various
neighborhoods
and
I.
Think
that
that
has
not
been
properly
considered.
C
F
I,
just
quick
response,
you
know,
I
hear
you
what
you're
saying
John
and
sometimes
I
feel
like
the
the
amount
of
process
that
we
require.
Applicants
to
go
through
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
get
pretty
bland
looking
architecture,
for
example,
that
if
you,
if
you
cut
people
loose
a
little
bit,
sometimes
the
creativity
comes
through.
F
Think
I'm
gonna
have
to
back
up.
Dave
and
say
that,
on
balance,
you
know
this
was
a
pretty
gentle
and
sensitive
update,
and
it
doesn't
really
seem
to
me
that
it
leans
in
one
direction
or
the
other
in
terms
of
you
know,
making
life
easier
or
harder
on
the
development
community
coming
through
with
projects
yeah.
B
I
mean
I,
think
John
you're
confusing
the
diminution
of
use
review
with
proper
application
in
Houston
view.
You
know,
we've
in
the
past
used
user
view,
probably
a
little
bit
improperly
to
try
to
put
into
the
discretionary
review
process
a
way
of
telling
people
away
one,
and
instead
of
doing
that,
you
can
actually
just
tell
people
what
you
want.
So
that's
I
think
what
a
lot
of
the
hills
are
doing
is
simply
saying,
like.
B
Oh
we've
done
use
review
in
order
to
try
to
ensure
that
we
have
ground
floor
facing
retail
on
Main
streets
and
it
turns
out
you
can
actually
just
say
that
and
then
people
know
and
then
you
don't
have
to
go
through
a
process
to
to
communicate
that,
and
you
also
don't
end
up
with
the
board
swinging
back
and
forth
over
time
and
changing
the
way.
It
applies.
The
discretionary
review
part
of
this
cuz
that
that
happens
as
well,
so
I
think
you
know
from
like
sound
urban
design
principles.
B
You
know
staffs
really
looked
at
like
well.
We
really
want
to
just
be
did
read
directive
and
say
like
do
this
and
it's
not
gonna
make
it
more
lenient.
It
just
simply
says
clearly
what
you
have
to
do
so
I,
don't
think
it's
the
right
lens
to
look
at
it
as
a
sort
of
development
friendly
or
easing
of
rules.
Cuz
I,
don't
think
it
is.
In
fact
you
can
make
much
more
concise,
explicit
rules
that
are
a
lot
more
stringent.
Then
you
can,
through
use
review
by
just
being
more
stringent.
K
The
day
and
I
do
want
to
actually
you
know
point
that
out
you're
right.
There
are
a
lot
of
A's
that
turned
into
else,
because
that
was
the
whole
purpose.
Here
was
to
make
sure
that
you
didn't
allow,
for
example,
what
we
dealt
with
with
BC
1
BC
2.
We
didn't
want
to
have
a
fair.
You
know:
BC
1
BC
2
last
year
we
didn't
want
to
have
an
entirely
residential
thing
happened
that
would
displace
where
we
wanted
a
few
storefronts
right.
K
So
it's
so
rather
than
having
a
there
that
could
have
turned
into
a
monoculture
of
one
particular
use.
We
put
an
L
in
and
then
said
in
words
what
it
should
look
like
and
I
think
that
that
actually
is
stricter,
so
I
I
wanted
to
back
up
that
point
and
that
that
appears
many
times
in
these
changes.
Oh.
J
A
process
question
the
ultimately,
the
ordinance
were
being
asked
to
respond
to
there
there.
There
isn't
I'm,
not
sure,
there's
a
way
to
convey
this
conversation,
I
mean
my
guess
is
we
have
a
3-2
here
and
so
the
citywide
we're
not
a
lot
we're
not
being
asked
to
vote
on
these
specific
elements.
So
my
question
is:
do
at
what
point
should
we
table
the
conversation
and
move
on
to
the
next
subject
so
that
we
can
continue
to
move
forward?
B
I've
been
thinking
about
that
as
well.
I
think
you
noted
for
us
to
at
this
point
to
question
the
scope
that
we've
been
given
is
a
pretty
awkward
time
to
do
that
and
I'm
not
sure
it's
an
appropriate
thing
for
us
to
do
at
all,
and
so
I
was
gonna.
Ask
you
guys
if
you'd
be
willing
to
simply
like
convey
that
to
City
Council
through
a
different
channel?
Maybe
additional
motion,
or
maybe
my
writing
a
dissenting
opinion.
But
if
it's
gonna
prevent
us
from
acting,
let's.
J
No
I,
it's
clear
what
the
vote
is,
what
the
vote
would
be
if
there
were
in
a
motion
specifically
on
making
it
citywide
or
not,
but
it
might
be
worth
asking
for
the
time
when
we
do
vote
for
hella
to
have
drafted
some
kind
of
motion
that
we
can
vote
on.
That
raises
concerns
about
a
citywide
application,
and
then
we
know
what
the
vote
will
be,
but
the
City
Council
will
have
captured
we'll
help
we'll
know
what
there
was
this
discussion.
I.
B
Yeah
now
I'm
gonna
put
forward
the
kind
of
obvious
conclusion
here,
which
is
that
if
the
two
of
you
are
planning
to
vote
against,
recommending
Mistah
City
Council
based
on
this,
then
we
should
actually
stop
our
conversation.
Because
then
Planning
Board
will
fail
to
act
and
we'll
we
won't
be
taking
this
up.
Then
we
should
just
stop
at
this
point.
J
C
F
Think
we
can
have
a
short
conversation
about
how
we
feel
about
the
other.
The
other
bits
it'll
be
in
the
minutes.
It'll
give
a
staff
some
direction
councils,
gonna
review
the
minutes.
They're
gonna
see
that
it
was
a
short-handed
board
that
voted
I'm.
Assuming
that
it's
gonna
be
three
to
two,
which
won't
be
enough
to
recommend
approval,
and
you
know
you
can
you
can
make
your
post-mortem
statement
in
the
minutes
around.
F
C
K
L
B
B
F
I
found
myself,
you
know
hearing
some
of
the
counter
points
on
this
one
and
thinking
that
while
I
could
live
with
this
and
I
wasn't
going
to
vote
against
the
app
the
the
whole
project.
Based
on
this,
you
know,
I
could
imagine
where
you'd
remove
the
the
use
review
requirement
for
under
a
certain
percentage,
so
it
kind
of
a
hybrid
of
the
two
suggestions.
The
one
was,
you
know
just
raised
the
threshold
to
50%.
The
other
was,
you
know,
remove
the
trigger
for
use
review
altogether.
F
You
know
what
about
something
where
up
to
50%,
you
don't
trigger
use
review.
It's
yeah
I'll
use
a
use
by
right
there
over
50%.
If
you
want
to
do
a
whole
building
full
of
one-bedroom
apartments,
given
the
fact
that
you
know
citywide
that
might
help
the
the
variety
of
housing
types
policy
that
we
have,
but
in
that
building
it
actually
subverts
that
policy.
J
Agree
with
Herman
and
would
also
suggest
if
we
didn't
change
the
trigger.
If
we
did
change
the
trigger,
we
think
about
a
way
to
require
some
percentage
be
permanently
affordable
because
the
I
one
of
the
goals
we're
trying
to
achieve
here
is
permanent
affordability.
And
yet
there
is
no
requirement
for
permanent
affordability
and
it's
an
assumption
that
the
market
itself
will
guarantee
affordability
and
I
think
either
the
use,
review
or
requirement
above
a
certain
percentage.
J
B
One
of
the
things
that
you
do
is
you
create
real
differential
needs,
two
months
and
once
those
units,
so
let's
say
you
were
gonna,
try
to
do
a
100
percent
PLU
project
with
tons
of
common
area,
but
then
you
found
out
you
needed
to
require
a
bunch
of
big
units
to
go
in
there
as
well.
Well,
it
Rose
the
justification
for
that
common
area.
B
It
makes
it
harder
to
do
things
where
things
are
successfully
shared
amongst
different
homeowners,
so
I
think
there's
a
really
like
some
real
downside
to
what
you're
suggesting,
because
if
you,
if
you
really
sort
of
force
this
to
be
diversity
of
you
know,
types
in
every
single
building
and
the
the
proof,
the
idea
behind
the
project
is
well.
We
can
make
6vl
use
work
and
we'll
provide
a
really
awesome
common
space.
Well,
instead
of
that,
you're
gonna
have
to
have
two
big
apartments
and
for
that
you'll
use
and
that
doesn't
work
anymore.
B
B
K
Just
I
just
wanted
to
simply
say
that
I'm
opposed
slapping
higher
inclusionary
housing
requirements
on
small
al
use.
I
don't
see
that
as
appropriate
I
I.
Just
can't
it's
punishing
a
certain
housing
type
that
doesn't
really
deserve
to
be
singled
out
for
punishment.
In
that
way,
I
don't
mean
to
use
the
word
punish,
but
I
mean,
of
course,
when
you
charge
people
money,
it
is
I.
Think
I'm.
C
K
K
B
Cool
jump
on
to
the
next
thing,
which
is
limiting
detached
dwelling
units
in
high
density,
residential
mixed
use
zones.
They
really
agree
with
staffs
conclusion
on
that:
okay,
all
unanimous
on
that
one,
limiting
apophis
uses
in
business
zones,
which
is
an
effort
to
repair
the
housing
and
jobs
imbalance.
Does
everybody
feel
good
about
that
move?
Okay
modify
office
used
to
be
music.
J
B
B
B
That's
the
one
I
feel
like
I
have
the
least
deep
knowledge
on
personally,
so
I
don't
feel
like
I've
got
a
great
grasp
of
in
those
zones.
You
know
off
my
head.
What
the
FA
are
is
what
caps
development
potential
for
these
sites.
How
does
25%
relate
to
that?
Is
it
gonna
be
one
of
four
floors?
Is
it
going
to
be
a
corner
of
a
single
story,
building
and
I?
B
Think
those
are
the
kinds
of
questions
I
would
want
to
see
explored
more
if
we
had
more
time
or,
if
you're
thinking
about
in
that
way,
but
I
feel
like
the
way
this
is
probably
and
I'm
gonna
explain
why
I'm
willing
to
kind
of
roll
with
us
right
now
without
having
additional
information?
The
way
it's
really
gonna
roll
out
is
you
know
how
existing
buildings
are
treated.
I.
B
Think
at
this
point,
so
so
the
next
one
requires
certain
uses
near
residential
zones
and
uses
to
reviewed
under
use
reviews
such
as
auto
sales
and
rentals
indoor,
amusement
and
Hotel
Motel
uses
and
limited
impacts,
the
residential
zones
there.
You
feel
good
about
that.
One:
okay
and
the
last
one
changed
convenience
retail
uses
to
allowed
providing
more
retail
options
and
industrial
and
business
zones
to
encourage
more
walkable
neighborhoods
does
every
feel
good
about
that.
One,
okay,
I
think
we're.
B
You
know
something
again,
I
think
that's
that's
one
of
I
mean
it's
kind
of,
though
honestly,
the
only
piece
of
the
original
impetus
of
this
project
to
create
more
walkable,
neighborhoods
and
picking
red
neighborhoods
is
still
standing
but
yeah.
Unless
we
do
get
you
know,
residential
industrial,
where
you
can
work
and
a
commune
store
altogether.
That
would
be
another
place.
Yeah.
F
I
mean
you
know,
I
needed
to
look
at
the
table.
Going
back
to
your
question
about
the
cap,
25%
of
floor
area
mm-hmm,
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
concerns
me
is
that
but
Sam
I'm
trying
to
put
a
dentist's
office
in
an
rmx
one
single
family
house,
and
it's
a
you
know
it's
a
1700
square
foot
house
on
two
floors.
F
So
I
have
850
square
feet
on
the
first
floor,
you're,
basically
telling
me
I've,
got
to
put
my
whole
dentist
office
in
425
square
feet
because
I'm
not
gonna,
put
people
upstairs
for
my
office
use.
So
you
know,
given
the
number
of
multi
storey
houses
and
the
zoning
districts
where
office
uses
can
be
allowed
in
residential
zoning
districts.
F
H
Yeah
I
mean
you
could
convey
a
statement
about,
looks
flooring,
an
alternative
and
we've
even
thought
of
it.
Like
you
know,
we
can
look
at
this
and
you
know
reopen
it
again
it
through
the
use,
standards
and
table
process
through
the
15-minute
neighborhood
discussion.
You
know,
maybe
we
tinker
with
this
again
to
get
it
right.
Yeah.
B
I
think
there's
a
couple
different
ways
of
doing
this,
which
could
be
you
know,
capped
at
25
percent
or
the
ground
floor
of
a
multi-story
building
under
a
certain
size.
Something
like
that.
We're
really
getting
away
from,
like
you
know,
splitting
these
tiny,
tiny
pies,
because
it
seems
like
the
application.
B
This
is
gonna
be
awfully
strange
if
you've
got
a,
you
know,
74,000
square
foot
building
and
you
can
use
25%
of
that-
that's
a
different
number
than
if
you
got
a
you
know,
800
square
foot
garage
or
a
400
foot
garage
behind
your
house
that
you
want
to
use
for
business
purposes.
Well,
you
can
use
100
of
that.
It's
kind
of
weird
so
does
every
support
like
communicating
some
level
of
flexibility
on
that
one.
C
B
B
H
B
I
guess
let's
take
the
first
one,
then
so,
and
I'll
just
pitch
I
think
I'm
a
I'm,
a
huge
fan
of
this
idea
of
finally
getting
some
of
the
things
that
we
really
worked
hard
on
in
the
farm
based
code
process
built
into
our
regular
land-use
code.
So
we
can
actually
start
to
say
instead
of
like
well,
you
can
have
25%
of
it
as
retail
like
up
on
the
top
or
over
there
and
the
back
or
in
was,
and
we
make
him
come
into
a
you
serve.
B
You
can
go
out,
guess
what
we
actually
meant.
It's
got
to
be
on
the
front
just
telling
him
I
can't
you
know
we
really
want
to
have
walkable
streets
in
the
city,
and
you
know
if
someone
28th
Street
gets
redeveloped
into
an
affordable
housing
project,
for
example,
requiring
that
the
first
30
feet
of
that
is
walkable.
Retail
is
a
cool
thing
to
do
so,
I'm
pitching
for
that
one.
Everybody
feel
good
about
that.
B
F
B
F
B
J
H
J
J
H
I
mean
that
in-depth
analysis
has
not
been
done,
but
I
think
again,
if
we're
talking,
if
we're
looking
at
typical
retail
depth,
is
around
22
like
30
feet.
So
if
it's
replacing
a
strip
mall
and
you're,
just
shifting
that
use
up
towards
the
street
and
then
you're
building,
you
know
retail
around
it.
Okay,.
B
K
K
B
F
K
Could
send
a
unanimous
vote
on
a
recommendation
on
everything,
but
the
L
use
I.
Think
that
sounds
a
nice
message
to
counsel
and
then
we
can
worry
about
a
separate
motion
to
communicate
how
we
feel
about
the
L
use
that
could
be
a
three
to
two
or
or
maybe
go
to
two
to
one
or
maybe
some
maybe
somebody'll
come
up
with
something
that
we
isn't
a
hundred
percent
that
we
could
live
with.
I
don't
know,
but.
K
We
can
kind
of
just
say:
well,
we
all
agreed
on
everything,
but
the
Lu
is
right,
and
then
we
can
worry
about
discussing
that
further.
What
you
want
can
make
a
motion
if
I'd
like
to
make
okay
I,
move
that
the
planning
board
recommends
staff
recommendations
with
regards
to
the
ordinance
under
discussion
on
all
before
you.
K
K
I
guess
we
could
vote
on
the
second
one
as
well,
if
we're
comfortable
and
lifting
the
development
restrictions
of
the
moratorium,
or
in
is
83-14
with
the
exception
of
applications
that
would
result
in
the
demolition
of
existing
multifamily
dwelling
units
in
the
rh4
and
rm1
zoning
district
within
the
opportunity
zone.
A
second
it.
K
K
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
say:
yeah
I'm,
you
know
I,
think
there's
so
much
good
work
here
that
I'm
really
happy
that
we
can
recommend
something,
even
if
we
don't
include
the
alias
I,
think
reasonable
people
can
disagree
on
that
and
I'm
perfectly
happy
discussing
that
after
this.
So
if
that
exception
to
number
one
works
for
people
I'm
perfectly
happy
with.
C
I
have
a
comment,
and
it's
because
I'm
not
sure
whether
to
offer
it
as
a
friendly
amendment
or
not,
and
that
is
that
it
seems
to
me
that
these
are
all
worthwhile
things
that
were
we're
supporting
here.
But
I.
It's
not
clear
to
me
that
we're
accomplishing
the
goal
of
capturing
the
value
for
the
community
benefit.
That
was
one
of
the
council's
objectives
in
in
putting
the
moratorium
on
this
and
asking
for
consideration
of
revised
land
use
code.
F
Know
I'd
like
to
respond
I'm
glad
you're,
you're
gonna
vote
for
this
I
think
that
if
we
went
back
to
the
last
slide
and
looked
at
what
the
major
points
are
that
we're
agreeing
to
recommend
to
council,
they
they
do
make
quite
a
strong
effort
to
capture
community
benefit.
Because
you
know,
we've
talked
about
wanting
to
get
rid
of
strip
malls
and
put
in
buildings.
That
would
have
you
know,
retail
and
residential,
some
of
which
is
affordable
in
their
place.
F
And
you
know
by
and
large-
that's
being
proposed
actually
accomplishes
that
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
the
whole
list.
But
I
think
that
the
the
Subcommittee
on
this
side
of
the
dais
here
and
staff
really
looked
at
the
comp
plan
and
and
every
one
of
the
proposals
was
meant
to
meet
the
comp
plan
goal.
So
I
I
would
be
uncomfortable,
saying
we're
approving
this
or
we're
recommending
approval
of
this.
But
we
don't
think
it's
doing
its
appointed
mission
because
I
think
it
does
yeah.
B
Honestly,
I
think
we're
really
lucky
that
we
already
had
the
use
table
process
underway
before
the
kerfuffle
over
Opportunity
Zones
happen,
because
those
are
zones
that
were
some
of
our
least
well
considered
zones
in
the
entire
land
use
code,
and
they
were
the
ones
where,
if
they
were
gonna
see
change
we'd
want
to
make
sure
that
the
change
is
what
we
want
to
see
for
the
next
50
years,
as
opposed
to
being
like
well
shoot.
We
missed
that
chance
again
so
I,
you
know
I'm
a
fan
of
making
these
things.
Things
happen
now
well,.
C
K
Danny
and
I,
you
know
I
I
would
maybe
say
yeah.
We
have
a
separate
community
benefits
initiative.
That's
being
worked
on.
You
know
that
is
focused
on
community
benefits.
I
think
this
does
its
job
in
the
scope
of
the
particular
problem
space,
but
we
will
see
additional
community
benefit
work
as
we
go
forward
that
it'll
be
outside
of
this
particular
initiative
right
other.
C
B
B
So
all
in
favor,
okay
passes
unanimously
and
I
didn't
didn't,
reread
it
sorry
and
then
I
guess
just
to
follow
through
on
what
I
said.
I
would
do,
which
is
to
like
give
this
air.
Just
for
a
quick
second
I
wanted
to
ask
city
staff:
did
you
actually
explore
ways
of
finding
out
whether
application
you
receive
for
a
building
permit
a
use,
change
or
a
site
review
was
funded
by
someone
who
was
taking
advantage
of
opportunities
own
tax?
That
designation,
and
did
you
find
a
way
for
us
to
exact
something
different
from
them?
B
I
think,
maybe
not
quite
word-for-word.
Did
you
find
a
way
to
find
out
to
first
find
out
if
an
application
that
comes
in
front
of
us
or
in
front
of
you
building,
permit
use
change,
tenant
finished,
whatever
site
review
use
of
you
if
that
was
backed
by
an
investor
who
is
taking
advantage
of
opportunities,
own
taxes
conditions?
So
that's
the
first
question:
I,
don't.
H
B
J
B
B
A
hundred
percent
camera
mate
retain
any
interest
in
it
to
be
involved
with
that,
but
wants
to
rent
it
back
for
the
next
seven
years
and
in
the
short
term
of
the
next
seven
years,
wants
to
pull
a
building
permit
to
get
lighting
upgrades
to
comply
with
building
energy
code.
How
would
we
go
about
in
that
situation
exacting
value
from
that
building
permit
towards
public
benefit,
because
the
landlord
has
access
to
opportunity
fund
money.
J
Probably
be
worthwhile
having
all
of
us
on
what
is
now
known
about
the
opportunity
zone
program,
because
when
it
was
first
approved
by
the
cities
by
the
city,
it
was
not
a
complete
program.
The
regs
weren't
done
and
I
assume
it's
further
along
now
and
some
of
these
this
questions,
because
you
I
think
you
can
actually
be
the
current
owner
and
still
be
in
the
opportunity
fund
but
20
to
20%
and
if
you're
a
financial
whiz,
you
can
just
create
a
LLC
and
sell
yourself
here.
J
B
B
Okie-Dokie
welcome
back
to
planning
board
July
25th
Thursday.
Now
we're
moving
to
our
last
item
of
the
evening,
which
is
a
matter
from
transportation
staff,
which
is
the
2019
transportation
master
plan
update
and
we're
gonna
start
with
a
presentation
staff
and
then
we'll
have
a
quick
discussion
and.
C
O
Well,
good
evening
my
name's
Randall
Russ
I'm
a
senior
transportation
planner
with
the
city,
and
this
is
really
intended
to
be
both
of
a
bit
of
background
briefing
to
you,
as
well
as
giving
you
some
information
on
the
work
items
that
were
focused
on
for
this
update.
We
anticipate
that
we
will
be
back
in
front
of
you
for
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
on
August
22nd
and
we're
going
to
council
currently
scheduled
September
17th.
So
that's
the
kind
of
timeline
that
we're
on
so
with
that.
O
Our
tune
is
at
least
25
years
old
I've
lost
track
of
when
it
came
when
it
was
published,
but
it
was
from
The,
Daily
Camera
and,
as
you
can
see,
it's
us
36
and
you
know
it's
your
fault,
but
the
reality
is
it's
our
fault
and
we're
in
this
together
and
that's
certainly
one
of
the
premises
of
the
things
that
we
try
to
do
in
transportation,
and
then
we
also,
you
know,
want
to
just
step
back
before
we
dive
into
the
details.
I
think
everyone,
of
course
knows
about
the
open
space
program.
O
O
So
we've
been
at
this
for
quite
a
while.
We've
also
had
success
as
part
of
the
TMP.
One
of
the
things
we
do
is
publish
a
report
on
progress
on
our
nine
measureable
objectives
and
other
things
every
two
years
and
one
of
the
key
factors
that
we
measure
is
vehicle
miles
of
travel
within
the
boulder
valley
on
a
daily
basis.
In
the
96
TMP,
we
established
a
target.
That
was
two
point.
Four
four
million
miles
a
vehicle
travel
in
the
boulder
valley
that
was
to
accomplish
the
goal
of
that
plan.
O
One
of
the
goals
of
that
plan
of
no
long-term
increase
in
vehicle
traffic.
You
can
see
that
red
line
as
that
target
the
green
shows
what
we've
estimated
we
were
able
to
do.
You
have
been
able
to
do
over
the
years
under
the
policy
direction,
and
you
can
see
that
we
were
above
the
line.
We
made
investments
in
programs.
We
were
able
to
start
to
turn
the
direction
of
the
line,
get
it
down
below
that.
O
In
the
last
few
years,
we've
started
to
see
BMT
go
up
again
now,
contrast
that
with
the
region
which
is
the
blue.
So
if
we
had
grown
in
the
boulder
valley
at
the
rate
the
region
has
grown,
it
would
look
like
that
blue
area.
So
so
we
have
been
able
to
achieve
a
fair
amount
and
we
certainly
travel
different
than
the
region.
Could.
O
Is
a
Denver
region,
so
dr.
cog
planning
area
essentially
yeah,
so
we
take
the
dr.
cog
data
and
apply
it
and
that's
what
gives
you
that
blue
area
as
part
of
the
last
update
of
the
plan,
then
this
is
extending.
You
know
that
graph
out
to
2035,
which
is
our
current
plan
horizon.
One
of
the
things
that
we
did
as
part
of
the
last
plan
was
a
extensive
greenhouse
gas
analysis
and
inventory
and
we
said
was
part
of
transportations
contribution.
O
We
would
try
to
reduce
vehicle
miles
traveled
by
20%,
so
you
can
see
the
dashed
line
there
saying
that
we
would
want
to
go
to
the
1.9
million
by
2035
and
again,
we've
carried
the
vehicle,
the
expected
growth
of
the
region
out
in
the
green
area.
In
this
case.
So
that's
part
of
the
challenge
that
we
have
and
when
you
think
about
you
know
the
climate
crisis
and
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
O
We'll
talk
a
fair
amount
more
about
that,
but
that
is
one
of
the
things
that
we're
certainly
focused
on
for
this
plan
and
of
course,
we've
been
doing
a
lot
of
community
outreach.
So
we
have
two
working
groups:
we've
been
working
with
growing
up
Boulder
with
youth
in
the
schools.
Oh,
you
might
remember.
O
So
with
that,
let's
go
into
the
items
that
we're
working
on
that
we're
covered
in
your
memo.
So
one
of
the
things
while
safety
has
always
been
a
priority,
we've
formally
committed
in
the
last
plan
to
something
called
vision:
zero,
that's
a
national
international
effort
to
reduce
severe
and
fatal
injuries
to
zero
in
the
transportation
system.
We
just
have
released
the
third
safe
streets,
Boulder
report
that
analyzes
all
the
accidents
that
occur
in
town
and
proposes
mitigation
measures
in
terms
of
what
can
be
done
in
that,
and
so
I
covered
a
little
bit
about
this.
O
But
you
know
we're
really
focused
on
trying
to
make
the
system
safe
and
the
recently
released
safe
streets.
Boulder
report
has
over
50
action
items
in
terms
of
what
to
do
with
that.
We
work
in
these
four
areas
that
are
shown
in
the
circles
there.
Since
the
last
plan
was
published
three
years
ago,
we've
done
a
hundred
and
forty-one
treatments
at
83
locations
in
the
community.
O
O
We
also
work
with
the
police
department
in
terms
of
strategic
initiatives,
and
then
we
continue
continue
to
evaluate
and
publish
safe
streets
report
every
three
years,
so
a
lot
going
on
in
this
area.
This
last
report
then
also
has
identified
some
high-impact
items
which
are
listed
here.
What
is
shown
in
the
photo
is
a
potential
design
for
the
30th
and
Colorado
intersection,
so
we're
putting
underpass
they're
also
doing
a
lot
of
improvements
to
for
bike
and
pedestrian
safety
is
part
of
that
we're
also
planning
to.
O
While
we
are
in
the
process
of
change
in
signal
timing,
we're
doing
engineering
countermeasures
at
specific
locations
and
we're
starting
an
arterial
speed
management
program,
because
we've
heard
from
the
community
that
speeding
is
a
big
issue
and
then
we'll
talk
more
about
the
low
stress
by
compared.
So
in
terms
of
the
memo
describe.
The
pedestrian
plan
is
one
of
the
focus
areas.
Well,
we've
done
a
lot
of
pedestrian
in
the
pedestrian
area.
It's
been
20
years
since
we
formally
updated
the
pedestrian
plan
as
part
of
the
TMP.
O
So
there's
been
a
working
group
about
25
people
involved
with
that
they've
done
a
lot
of
activities
both
in
terms
of
walkabouts
in
the
community
education
events
working
with
that
committee
and
then
really
working
with
the
disabled
community
in
terms
of
understanding
their
specific
needs,
because
we
say
if
a
sidewalk
works
for
someone
in
the
wheelchair,
it
works
for
everybody
so
that,
as
part
of
the
perspective
we're
bringing
to
this.
So
the
memo
describes
some
of
the
vision
and
goals
that
we
have
for
the
pedestrian
plan.
O
One
of
the
things
that
will
be
a
continuing
action
out
of
the
pedestrian
plan
is
what's
called
the
American
with
Disabilities
Act
self-assessment,
so
that
is
aimed
at
bringing
our
facilities
up
to
meet
the
ADA
a
requirements
and
then
we've
also
been
doing
more
promotion
in
terms
of
walking,
so
walkabouts
have
started
doing
those
with
City
Council
members
and
brachot
was
on
the
first
one
and
the
thing
about
things
about
streets
for
people
so
play
streets.
Events
streets.
That
kind
of
thing
make
that
easier
to
do
in
the
community.
O
So
the
big
part
of
both
walking
and
biking
as
part
of
this
planning
plan
update
is
what
we
call
the
low
stress
Network.
This
idea
started
in
the
last
update,
but
we're
really
developing
it
as
a
way
to
help
people
get
to
where
they
want
to
go,
walking,
biking
safely,
comfortably
and
because
I
know
you're
interested
in
land-use
I
thought
you'd
be
interested
in
that
we've
updated
the
neighborhood
access
map.
So
this
was
a
tool
that
we
developed
in
the
last
plan.
O
This
go-around
we
used
be
heard
Boulder
to
ask
the
community
what
are
the
destinations
they're
most
interested
in,
so
we
reran
the
tool
against
those
destinations.
This
is
the
resulting
map.
The
darker
green
is
the
places
where
you've
got
the
highest
level
of
access.
If
you
just
think
about
the
community,
that
kind
of
intuitively
makes
sense.
Where
are
the
most
shops
and
destinations
and
the
you
know
the
best
pedestrian
system
I
think
intuitively
it
matches
what
the
tool
shows.
The
new
as
part
of
this
is
that
we're
taking
that
information
identifying
pedestrian
improvement
areas.
B
Let
me
just
interrupt
you
for
just
one
second
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
we
got
a
presentation
on
this
low
stress
walk
that
they
use
table
sub-community
process
with
some
members
of
the
look
there
and
these
images
that
you're
seeing
here
are
informing
the
process
of
figuring
out
where
to
do
things
better
to
make
things
more.
Walkable
and
more
low
stress
I
just
want
to.
O
Yeah,
so
we're
we're
looking
at
these
pedestrian
improvement
areas
and
then
we're
looking
at
Green
Street
corridors.
These
are
quarters.
I'll
talk
just
a
little
bit
more
about,
but
overlaying
those
together
and
give
and
giving
us
areas
where
again,
we
can
work
on
the
transportation
system
to
improve
access
to
destinations
that
already
exist
in
a
low-stress
way,
so
it's
and
comfortable,
more
safe
and
comfortable
than
it
is
today
then
I
mentioned
low
stress.
A
fair
amount
and
low
stress
bike
is
another
part
of
this.
O
So
again,
we've
been
working
with
primarily
community
cycles,
but
there
have
been
a
number
of
community
events
to
define
the
low
stress
system.
Some
of
this
is
also
coming
out
of
the
vision,
zero
work
and
the
idea
here
is
really
trying
to
build
a
system
that
again
is
comfortable
for
the
eight
to
eighty
age
range,
so
something
you
would
take
your
child
on
or
something
that
you
might
take
your
parents
on
and
that
they
would
feel
comfortable,
walking
or
biking
on
that
system.
O
This
case
biking,
so
we
have
four
proposed
facility
types
as
part
of
that
bike.
Low
stress
system
they're,
you
know
named
and
photos
they're
I
won't
go
through
them
in
detail.
But
what
is
what
is
really
new?
Is
the
idea
of
protected
bike
lane
and
buffered
bike
lane
we've
done
a
few
buffered
bike
lanes.
We
would
expand
that
and
then
protect.
O
We're
anticipating
that
the
that
quarter
will
be
done
by
mid-august
and
then
there'll
be
some
sort
of
grand
opening,
late,
August,
early
September
and
there's
also
the
10th
that
there'll
be
a
dedication
to
Elle
Bartlett,
who
some
of
you
may
remember
his
name.
He
actually
generated
the
first
bike
plan
for
the
city
of
Boulder.
It
was
instrumental
in
getting
that
started,
so
we
wanted
to
do
something
to
honor
that
memory
with
him.
O
There's
a
lot
of
pavement
markings
planned
like
I,
say
if
you
happen
to
go
by
Canyon
and
13th
you'll
see
a
whole
bunch
of
green
paint
that
wasn't
there
couple
days
ago
and
that's
the
start
of
it.
I
only
rode
up
to
Pine
I
guess,
but
there
were
new
green
markings
almost
up
to
Pine,
as
of
just
the
last
day
or
two
yeah.
O
O
This
Portland
in
particular
really
pioneered
the
use
of
green
paint,
so
yeah,
so
we're
in
conversation
I
think
pretty
much
up
to
speed
in
terms
of
what
people
are
doing
and
then,
when
we
put
these
in,
we
also
try
to
evaluate
them,
and
so
yeah
we'll
be
building
that
library
of
things
that
we
think
work
best
in
Boulder,
based
on
everything.
We've
learned,
as
well
as
what
we're
gonna
learn.
Thank.
K
O
You
know
I
imagine
there
will
be,
and
this
is
not
my
direct
project,
so
I'm
out
of
my
depth
fairly
quickly.
I'll
acknowledge
that,
but
I'm
sure
that
there'll
be
some
some
education
campaigns
around
this
as
part
of
the
launch
event.
So
with
the
launch,
we
should
be
putting
some
materials
out.
We've
also
been
working
just
in
a
more
general
sense,
working
with
Boulder
County,
that's
been
doing
some
education
for
drivers
on
how
to
share
the
road
with
bikes.
They've
had
a
series
of
classes
over
the
last
couple
of
months.
O
J
A
O
So
we
always
try
to
I
mean
it's
been
going
on
for
years.
You
know
we
always
try
to
work
with
see
you
as
part
of
Student
Orientation
and
as
some
of
the
events
that
happen
early
in
the
fall
when
students
come
to,
you
know
be
on
campus
at
some
of
their
fair
and
whatnot
to
provide
education,
materials
and
then,
as
the
day
starting
a
little
shorter,
there's
the
light
up
the
night
campaign,
which
is
largely
oriented
at
students.
You
know
you
give
away
free
lights
and
they
tend
to
stop
and
talk
to
you
so
yeah.
O
So
we
know
that
that
we
get
a
lot
of
and
and
I'm
a
bike
commuter
and
so
I
see
it
every
fall.
You
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
people
that
show
up
that.
It's
pretty
clear,
they've,
not
seen
a
bike
and
many
peds
and
their
driving
experience
and
they're
surprised
when
you
show
up
so
yeah.
We
know
that's
a
big
challenge
every
year.
O
Okay,
so,
let's
move
on
to
funding.
Obviously
a
really
big
issue.
I'm.
Imagine
you've
got
that
from
the
memo
you
know.
Of
course,
we
try
to
build
a
well
maintained,
safe,
sustainable
transportation
system.
We
want
to
provide
options,
we
want
livable
communities,
you
know
reduce
greenhouse
gas
and
other
air
emissions,
etc.
We
do
that,
obviously,
by
funding
the
things
we
do
and
the
issues
we
face.
We're
gonna
talk
a
little
more
about,
because
that
is
one
of
the
big
challenges
we
have.
O
Current
funding
doesn't
allow
us
to
do
a
whole
lot
at
this
point
and
I'll
explain
more
why
but
it's
safe
to
say
that
without
additional
funding
were
gonna,
continue
to
defer
maintenance
and
we're
not
gonna
meet
a
lot
of
the
goals
we
have
in
the
plan.
One
of
the
reasons
for
that
is
again
I
mentioned
the
six
tenths
of
a
cent
sales
tax.
O
Well
we're
fortunate
to
have
that
that
hasn't
changed
since
67
a
lot
of
other
things
have
changed
since
then,
and
if
you
take
away
federal
funding,
which
varies
a
lot
year
by
year,
this
happens
to
be
a
particularly
rich
year,
but
some
years
of
federal
funding
is
only
a
million
or
two,
and
that
may
potentially
go
away
over
time.
But
you
know
generally,
sales
tax
is
about
80
percent
of
our
budget,
and
you
all
know
that
with
economic
cycle,
sales
tax
goes
up
and
down,
and
that's
one
of
the
challenges
we
have.
O
We
also
know
that
be
that
things
get
more
expensive
and,
and
we
have
been
deferring
maintenance,
and
so
this
just
gives
you
an
illustration
of
how,
over
time,
the
amount
of
investment
relative
to
operations
and
maintenance
that
we're
able
to
do
goes
down.
If
we
were
fully
funding
operations
and
maintenance
today,
we
would
not
be
able
to
invest
anything
in
capital
projects
and,
and
that
would
of
course,
be
true
in
the
future
as
well.
Just
one
concrete
example
of
why
that
is.
O
We
fight
that,
but
they
largely
depend
on
sales
tax
revenues
as
we
do,
and
then
they
have
a
rail
system
that
they
have
to
support,
and
so
the
combination
of
that
means
that
they
are
planning
to
continue
to
reduce,
what's
called
base
bus
service
and
we're
certainly
being
affected
by
that
I
mean
then,
as
part
of
this
update,
we've
also
done
a
detailed
refresh
of
what's
called
our
renewed
vision
for
transit.
This
was
something
that
was
transit
was
the
big
focus
of
the
last
update,
and
so
we've
taken
a
renewed
look
at
that.
O
This
gives
you
a
sense
of
the
costs
that
come
out
of
that
now.
These
would
not
necessarily
be
all
of
our
costs.
They
could
be
shared
across
the
county
or
potentially
from
other
sources,
but
we've
got
significant
needs
to
grow
the
transit
system.
We
feel
that
we
need
to
reach
our
goals
and
then,
particularly
as
we
grow
as
an
employment
center,
we
need
to
improve
those
regional
connections
and
one
of
the
things
that
we're
currently
working
on
is
state
highway,
7
out
to
Brighton
and
119
to
Longmont,
with
the
model
being
us
36.
O
So
that
kind
of
dedicated
Lane
for
carpoolers
and
people
to
buy
into
and
bus
rapid
transit
along
with
a
you
know,
regional
bike
facility
off
the
road
are
the
the
things
that
we're
striving
for
in
those
corridors.
But
that's
you
know,
those
are
expensive
propositions,
but
we
do
know
from
you
is
36.
Did
you
get
significant
increase
in
ridership
when
you
make
transit,
reliable
and
time
competitive,
if
not
even
faster
than
driving,
yeah
yeah.
F
O
Yeah,
so
this
would
be
cost
above
what
our
TDS
doing
today,
and
so
currently
the
only
I
mean
you
know.
Rtd
operates
as
a
regional
agency,
with
15-member
board
of
directors
and
directors
are
by
district,
and
so
one
of
the
things
that
goes
on
in
RTD
is
that
every
director
wants
their
share
of
the
pie
and
in
some
cases
that
means
empty
buses
running
around
and
you
know
places
likes
like
Highlands
Ranch
and
full
buses
running
around
here
with
some
of
those
buses
being
cut
over
time.
O
In
terms
of
you
know,
if
we're
gonna
get
more
transit,
we
need
to
figure
out
how
to
do
it
at
a
relatively
local
level,
whether
that's
Boulder,
City
or
Boulder,
County,
or
some
collection
of
northwestern
communities,
because
there
are
needs
here
that
haven't
been
met
with
fast
tracks
as
we're
all
aware
of,
and
so
we
are
the
quadrant
of
the
region
that
has
gone
almost
nothing
out
of
fast
tracks
and
we
have
needs,
and
it
doesn't
look
like
the
region's
gonna
help
us
with
those
needs.
So
if.
F
O
Or
to
contract
in
several
different
ways
to
get
more
buses
directly
so
so
one
model
we
have
is
the
hop
service,
is
that
usually
managed
by
the
city
under
I
mean
vias,
the
operator
we
contract
with
via
for
that
service
and
the
city
actually
started
that
service.
Now
over
time,
RTD
has
agreed
to
pay
for
half
of
that
service
city
pays
for
half
RTD
pays
for
half,
so
that's
one
model
right.
O
O
Just
the
tip
of
the
iceberg,
I
mean
and
it's
hard
to
be
sure
any
of
this
is
hard,
but
we
can
look
around
the
country
and
see
examples
where
this
has
happened
in
regions
where
you
know
a
large
transit
operator
is
decided
that
they
want
to
run
regional
and
maybe
they
want
to
run
primarily
regional
rail
and
then
the
bus
service
Falls
to
the
local
counties
or
jurisdictions
to
run
at
a
level
that
they
feel
is
appropriate.
So
so
there
are
success
models
out
there.
O
So
there's
almost
done
with
funding
here,
just
two
more
slides,
so
we've
had
a
working
group,
that's
Matt,
I
think
eight
times
on
all
of
this.
Looking
both
to
understand
what
the
funding
situation
is
in
transportation
and
then
to
develop
a
short
list
of
potential
funding
mechanisms-
and
this
is
just
a
graphic
that
shows
that
they
basically
came
up
with
three
tiers.
O
So
the
blue
is
in
the
the
blue
is
the
first
tier.
The
orangish
is
second
tier
and
the
green
is
the
third,
and
so
you
can
see
that
right
now,
we're
largely
dependent
on
sales
tax
revenue.
The
thing
that
we
did
a
log
work
on
after
the
last
plan
was
something
called
transportation
utility
fee
and
that
utility
is
the
way
that
you
tend
to
administer
it.
It
goes
on
utility
bills,
but
it's
assessed
by
properties
and
it's
assessed
can
be
assessed
different
ways
potentially
on
frontage
on
the
street,
potentially
on
the
number
of
trips
generated.
O
But
it
is
a
fee
that
basically
is
typically
used
to
help
maintain
the
system,
and
so
certainly
the
working
group
said
we
all
think
about
a
transportation
utility
fee
to
help
us
take
care
of
maintaining
the
system.
That's
a
local
concern.
Nobody's
gonna
help
us
with
it.
If
we've
got
a
deficit,
we
need
to
figure
out
how
to
fund
it
is.
O
Would
not
tax
it
would
and
it
can
be
done
either
way.
I
mean
there's
different
requirements
for
each
path,
but
you
can
do
either
way.
The
other
thing
they
recommend
in
the
first
tier
was
a
countywide
transportation
tax.
This
is
something
that
is
being
talked
about
countywide.
Potentially,
this
is
something
that
help
fund
the
county
transit
service,
so
those
regional
corridors
as
well
as
transit
within
communities.
O
That
is
something
that
we're
hoping,
Boulder
County
will
take
the
lead
on,
but
it's
something
that
potentially
could
could
happen,
so
I
mean
either
of
these.
If
they
need
to
be
voted
on,
we
would
like
to
see
on
the
2020
ballot,
because
we
think
there's
they're
both
needed.
If
we
don't
show
up
at
2020,
others
are
gonna,
show
up
in
2021.
So
there's
that
aspect
all
of
this
as
well.
The
second
level
shown
in
the
orange
of
their
vehicle
registration
fee.
O
That
would
be
that's
something
that
our
climate
folks
took
to
Council
a
couple
a
couple
months
ago,
as
a
potential
way
to
fund
their
program.
It's
basically
a
you
know
a
fee
when
you
register
your
vehicle.
One
way
that
the
group
has
talked
about
is
potentially
making
at
a
progressive
fee.
Maybe
it's
tied
to
the
value
of
the
vehicle,
because
one
of
the
concerns
council
had
when
the
climate
folks
talked
about
it
was
concerned,
it
would
was
not
progressive
and
potentially
could
even
be
regressive
and
they
were
concerned
about
that.
O
Curbside
management
is
something
that
is
being
talked
up
a
lot
about,
or
he's
being
talked
a
lot
about
in
the
transportation
world.
So
so
we
know
that
all
of
us,
as
well
as
transportation
network
companies
like
uber
lyft,
as
well
as
delivery
companies
as
well
as
scooters
and
all
this
new
stuff,
that's
coming-
are
all
trying
to
access
the
public
right
away
and
main
cases
trying
to
access
the
curb.
So
one
of
the
things
that
a
lot
of
people
are
talking
about
is
how
do
you
manage
the
curb
in
a
different
way?
O
How
do
you
manage
dynamically
so
changes
over
the
day,
and
how
do
you
price
it
and
the
positive
side
of
potentially
pricing
is
that
you
provide
reservation
service.
So
if
I'm,
a
delivery
truck
driver,
I
get
to
park
close
to
my
delivery,
I'm
guaranteed
a
spot
when
I
show
up
I'm,
not
there
for
very
long,
but
I
also
pay
something
for
that
savings
of
time
and
effort.
So
that's
something
they
were
very
interested
in
and
then
congestion
pricing.
O
You
know,
we've
already
got
an
that
on
us
36
with
the
hot
lanes
you
can
buy
into
that
as
a
single
occupant
driver
and
you
pay
a
price
that
is
changes
over
time
to
make
sure
that
that
Lane
continues
to
be
free-flowing.
So
if
the
bus
and
HOV
people
are
not
not
hindered
by
you
being
there,
so
we
think
that's
something
that
could
be
done
on
other
corridors,
something
that
potentially
could
be
done.
O
You
know
throughout
the
county,
particularly
as
we
put
other
improvements
on
those
corridors
and
then
vehicle
miles,
traveled
tax,
you've,
probably
read
in
the
paper,
that's
being
looked
at
nationally.
That's
that
third
tier,
that's
something
that
we
would
not
do
ourselves
would
not
make
sense
to
do
ourselves
in
terms
of
impacts
on
business
and
that
kind
of
thing.
But
if
you
read
the
paper
you
know
gas
tax
is
declining
revenue
source.
A
lot
of
states
are
experiment.
O
Well,
number
of
states
have
experimented
with
a
vehicle
mile,
it's
traveled
tax
and
there's
even
bit
some
talk
of
the
federal
level.
For
that.
So
just
to
give
you
a
sense,
then
of
you
know
the
kinds
of
things
we're
talking
about
lots
of
money.
You
can
see
our
current
budget
and
the
needs
for
both
the
unfunded,
essential
services
and
what
the
outline
of
a
strategic
investment
program
might
be
and
included
in
your
packet
as
I.
Think
attachment
C
was
a
more
detailed
explanation
of
what
might
go
into
that
strategic
program.
K
K
O
So
so
we
know,
on
the
basis
of
you,
know
our
experience
in
the
downtown
and
what
we
see
in
our
surveys,
as
well
as
national
experience,
that
aid
managed
parking
is
one
of
the
most
powerful
things
you
can
do
to
change.
Travel,
behavior
and
I.
Think
we've
all
experienced
that
we
certainly
see
it
on
campus,
who
see
in
downtown.
We
see
it
in
Boulder
Junction
it
takes,
it
has
other
costs.
O
You
know
if
we're
serious
about
our
greenhouse
gas
goals
and
we're
not
able
to
you
know
to
generate
as
much
revenue
as
you
might
need
to
do
everything.
The
other
side
of
the
equation
to
move
greenhouse
gas
is
the
TDM
with
parking
as
the
foundation
for
that.
So
we
can
take
policy
actions.
We
can
take
funding
investment
actions,
ideally
he'll
be
a
the
right
balance
of
both
so.
O
O
O
There
are
good
reasons
to
do
that
in
terms
of
gives
you
more
time
generate
more
funding,
etc.
But
when
you
go
back
again
to
the
climate
crisis
and
the
need
to
reduce
greenhouse
gas,
we
asked
you
know:
should
we
consider
going
to
2030
and
they
basically
said
yeah
with
no
discussion
so
definitely
increases.
The
challenge
definitely
increases
the
pressure
to
get
stuff
done.
But
again,
if
we're
serious
about
a
50%
reduction
by
2030,
you
can't
wait.
You
know
you
gotta
be
working
hard
on
this
stuff
pretty
much
immediately.
O
We
think
there
are
some
reasons
why
you
know
that
is
even
conceivable.
You
know
a
big
one
is
electrification
so
five
years
ago,
if
you
said
I
want
to
buy
an
electric
transit
vehicle,
there
was
one
or
two
demos
on
the
market,
but
they
really
didn't
work
very
well
and
there
were
good
reasons
not
to
buy
them.
Today,
there's
last
figure:
I
read
four
hundred
and
twenty
five
thousand
electric
buses
on
the
road.
O
Four
hundred
of
those
happen
to
be
in
China,
but
there
are
whole
cities
in
China
of
ten
million,
plus
people
that
are
100%
electric
transit
vehicles.
So
I
think
you
can
say
that
the
technology
is
improved
to
a
point
where
you
know
you
really
can
meet
a
majority
of
your
needs
with
an
electric
bus,
the
same
way:
electric
vehicles,
you
know
both
personal
and
bikes,
I
mean
five
years
ago.
You
could
get
an
electric
bike,
but
it
was
a
very
expensive.
It
was
clunky.
O
Today,
almost
every
manufacturer
has
one
or
more
electric
bikes
and
their
line
prices
have
come
down
a
great
deal.
So
you
know
that
so
the
technology
is
helping
a
whole
lot.
As
you
mentioned.
We
know
we
can
do
a
lot
more
with
TDM.
So
that's
an
area
that
we
know
we
can
make
big
impacts
on
and
then
we
know
that
the
younger
generations
have.
You
know
different
travel
preferences,
they're
not
getting
the
driver's
license
at
16
and
buying
a
car
as
their
first
priority.
O
They
tend
to
have
other
priorities
in
many
cases
and
then
all
the
technology,
that's
coming
so
the
micro
mobility,
whether
it's
electric
bike
or
scooters,
the
potential
for
shared
and
electric
car
sharing
you
that
would
drive
down
emissions
and
reduce
the
need
to
have
vehicles.
Those
are
all
things
have
really
developed
in
the
last
five
years
that
give
you
hope
so
we're
trying
to
think
about
that
future.
You
know
we're
talking
about
smart
streets.
O
What
all
goes
into
that
as
part
of
this
process
and
we've
developed
a
set
of
principles
and
policies
that
were
I
think
attachment
a
or
B
in
your
packet
relative
to
what
we
call
advanced
mobility.
So
we
want
to
shape
any
of
the
technologies
that
come
in
a
way
that
support
our
broader
community
goals,
including
greenhouse
gas
reduction,
and
then
we're
certainly
going
to
pilot
and
innovate
as
part
of
that.
So
this
fall.
We
should
be
starting
the
second
door-to-door
demonstration
in
the
downtown.
O
You
might
remember
that
happen
two
plus
years
ago,
over
the
holiday
season
we've.
Well,
we
have
a
moratorium
on
scooters,
we're
gonna
be
doing
some
pilots
over
the
next
nine
months
and
then
developing,
presumably
developing
a
program
to
allow
those
to
come
into
the
community.
We're
currently
working
toward
a
curb
management
demonstration
with
the
transportation
network
companies
we've
applied
for
some
things:
we're
investigating
the
automated
transit
and
actually
beginning
of
August.
O
We
got
accepted
into
the
Rocky
Mountain
Institute,
Innovation,
Lab,
and
so
we'll
be
going
there
with
CU
and
Boulder
Valley
School
District,
looking
at
ways
to
cooperate
and
electrify
our
fleets,
and
so
we
think
that's
a
pretty
darn,
exciting.
So
final
slide,
then
you
know
this
is
where
we
are
I
mentioned
that
we're
going
to
council
and
we'll
be
back
here
on
August
22nd,
going
to
council
September
17th,
you
know
plan
will
have
all
these
things
listed
and
then
we
hope
we
get
to
work
after
that,
because
we've
got
11
years
to
2030.
P
Pressure
team
from
tab
I
had
a
couple
of
thoughts
Randall,
as
we
were
going
through
largely
about
Syria.
The
question
that
you
had
asked
like:
how
do
we
educate
the
drivers
about
what
what
it
is
that
we're
doing,
and
that
question
came
up
in
the
context
of
the
Green
Streets,
the
first
one
on
13th
Street
and
the
general
idea
with
that
follows
one
of
the
fundamental
principles
behind
vision.
Zero
generally
is
that
signs
and
education
are
essential,
but
there
are
simply
not
enough.
P
People
make
mistakes
and
what
we
have
to
do
is
plan
for
those
mistakes
and
make
those
mistakes
less
deadly,
less
likely
to
happen
in
the
first
place
and
so
with
something
with
the
engineering
treatments
that
we
would
like
to
see
rolled
out
that
showed
up
on.
You
know
the
slide
from
the
future
and
the
smart
Street
slide
that
Randall
had
that
that
had
a
lot
of
engineering
treatments
built
into
it,
that
we've
learned
our
essential
to
achieving
vision
zero.
P
We
would
ideally
like
every
street
to
be
obvious
to
any
driver,
whether
they're
from
here
from
somewhere
else
or
from
another
country,
to
be
able
to
stand
out
on
a
street
corner
and
be
able
to
tell
where
the
cars
are
supposed
to
be
where
the
people
on
feet
are
supposed
to
be
where
the
bicycles
are
supposed
to
be.
Ideally,
that's
what
we're
we're
working
toward
and
that
should
take
less
information
over
time
that
needs
intervention
and
special
fliers
and
handouts
and
explanation
and
something
that
is
more
self
explanatory
and
self-enforcing
in
that
way.
P
Are
that
that's
valuable
in
and
of
itself
as
a
public
safety
measure
apart
from
our
climate
goals.
So
that's
something
we're
still
trying
striving
for.
Definitely
it's
going
to
be
a
heavy
lift
to
get
there
by
2035,
but
our
2013
ow,
but
we
are
committed
for
a
number
of
reasons
toward
moving
all
of
these
goals
together
because
they
do
interconnect
so
much.
Thanks.
K
See
these
folks
look
at
various
TMP
and
listen
to
your
great
feedback
and
I
just
want
to
reinforce
what
you
said.
There
are
limitations
of
how
we
can
collaborate
cause
I
do
ditional,
we
do
with
land
use
code,
but
I
think
that
there
are
really
important
touch
points
with
tab
and
things
that
we
we
really
need
to
be
familiar
with.
K
P
You
I
and
another
member
of
Tabitha
and
just
as
individuals
very
involved
with
thinking
about
Alpine
balsam,
because
I
don't
think
that
the
transportations
portion
of
that
plan,
as
it's
sort
of
coalescing,
has
been
very
well
thought
through
and
you
know
we
would
like
to
have
as
much
input
as
we
can.
We
can't
do
it
officially,
so
we're
just
actually.
J
So
I
didn't
realize
we're
not
allowed
to
talk
about
land-use
issues.
Are
you
allowed
to
talk
about
things?
One
of
the
this
may
not
be
part
of
vision,
zero,
but
as
a
pedestrian,
I
see
lots
and
lots
of
people
on
their
phones,
while
they're
driving,
which
of
course
makes
it
highly
dangerous
and
right
I'm
part
of
most
I'm.
This
close
to
getting
run
over
nearly
every
day
at
14th
and
pine
and
I'm
curious.
What
role
of
any
you
all
have
in
pushing
for
some
kind
of
city
ordinance.
P
So
there
was
a
new
state
law
that
got
enacted
last
year
and
it
was
going
to
be
tougher
and
instead
it
got
softened.
So
now
it's
not
I'm
talking
on
your
phone
is
no
longer
an
offence
that
you
can
be
pulled
over
for
in
like
independently.
You
have
to
be
committing
some
other
infraction
at
the
time
now
you
might
be
committing
the
infraction
of
careless
driving.
I
would
argue
that
is.
P
P
Last
year
that
happened
at
the
state
level,
a
more
positive
development
that
happened
at
the
state
level
this
year
and
I
haven't
read
it
in
detail
yet,
but
there
is
a
new
vulnerable
user
law
and
so
motorists
who
injure
a
vulnerable
user,
a
cyclist,
a
pedestrian
some,
you
know,
there's
classes
that
are
spelled
out.
They
have
heightened
penalties
for
doing
so,
and
that
was
enacted
after
several
failed
attempts
by
previous
assemblies,
and
so
that
was
a
positive
development
and
that
might
again
have
an
an
impact.
P
If
people
realize
that,
when
they're
distracted,
if
they
hit
somebody
who's
more
vulnerable,
it's
gonna
really
really
start
costing
them
more.
Or
it's
going
to
be
much
more
serious,
offense,
it's
possible.
We
could
try
to
frame
some
messaging
around
this
new
law
and
that
new
level
of
responsibility
around
the
responsibility.
To
be
more
aware,
of
course,
awareness
generally
as
part
of
our
the
city's
vision,
zero
messaging,
which
has
been
going
out
and
also
one
thing
you
had
asked
about
on
the
communication
side
and
with
the
new
students,
the
city
did
a
really
great
job.
P
P
Social
media
platforms
that
the
city
has
not
traditionally
been
on,
and
so
they
did
create
some
targeted
messaging
based
on
geofencing,
like
where
the
students
phones
were,
they
could
be
alerted
to
something
in
the
area
and
they
had
tried
some
vision:
zero
connected
messaging
around
that
so
we're
working
on
it,
we're
thinking
about
it.
There
are
different
ways
to
reach
out
to
these
populations,
but-
and
we
had
some
pretty
exciting
pilots
over
the
summer,
about
transportation
related
stuff
toward
the
targeted
at
that
student
population,
where
they
were
very
cool.
B
Staff
does
a
pretty
good
job
of
this
internally,
but
I
do
think
it
would
make
sense
for
us
to
have
some
sunshine
on
it,
for
it
to
be
in
front
of
Planning,
Board
and
city
council
places
where
you
find
as
you
go
through
the
TMP
update
and
also
places
where
you,
as
you
begin
to
work
on
specific
projects.
You
uncover
conflicts
between
other
approved
area
plans
or
design
guidelines,
or
things
like
that.
You
know,
for
example,
like
the
North
Boulder
project
project.
That's
happening
right
now
has
conflicts
with
the
North
Boulder
sub
community
plan.
B
Well,
that's
a
pretty
good
thing
to
actually
put
some
daylight
on
and
then
say
this
is
a
this
is
a
trigger
for
updating
that
plan,
as
opposed
to
sort
of
saying.
Well,
you
know
we
update
our
plans
every
five
years.
Maybe,
and
sometimes
we
reduce
the
scope
to
be
meaningless,
let's
really
actually
tackle
it
and
make
that
a
trigger
for
updating
those
plans
so
that
they're
really
actively
incorporating
these
ideas
that
didn't
exist
when
they
were
written
things
like
block
permeability,
vision,
zero,
low
stress,
all
this
sort
of
stuff,
North
Pole's
them.
B
Can
you
plan
just
to
pick
on
that?
One
also
still
more
or
less
keep
super
blocks
intact
and
because
of
our
lack
of
political
will
to
draw
little
green
lines
in
places
we
don't
have
a
connection
anywhere
down
the
Norwood
hill
from
Broadway
to
iris
at
all,
and
so,
if
you're
gonna
take
a
bike
you're
going
to
Broadway
right
at
iris.
B
Those
are
horrible
and
they're,
certainly
not
in
the
vein
of
low
stress
by
connections
or
pedestrian
connections,
bad
pedestrians
and
say
you
can
go
up
to
fourth
or
you
can
you
know
you
can
wheel
your
way
through,
like
twenty,
sixth
and
seventh
and
eighth,
and
so
there's
this
huge,
huge
swath
where
there
is
no
and
your
map
showed
no
low
stress
connection
to
their
also
on
land-use
planning.
I
think
it
would
be
really
helpful
for
us
to
continue
the
liaison
between
the
low
stress
Network
that
you're
working
on
and
they
use
tables
projects.
B
So
we
can
really
benefit
from
that
thinking
and
have
a
kind
of
clear
and
coherent
definition
of
what
uses
are
people
getting
into
their
car
to
go
to
that
they
could
otherwise
walk
to
I
mean
if
I'm
gonna
buy
a
new
sofa
I'm,
not
gonna.
Do
it
probably
within
a
15-minute
walk
and
I'm,
probably
gonna
use
a
car,
but
if
I'm
gonna
buy
everything
else,
I
did
was
in
a
general
week.
B
B
It's
really
been
wonderful
and
all
the
way
down
to
small
details
like
where
you
see
a
small,
safe
routes
to
school
project
happen
and
all
of
a
sudden,
the
crossing
that
was
super
scary
for
small
children
is
now
really
not
very
stressful
at
all
so
stuff,
like
that
or
the
connection
next
to
djaro
want
a
story,
a
quince
thank
you
for
that.
That
was
great.
So
those
are
some
general
comments.
B
G
I'm
here,
I'm
Kathleen,
King,
senior,
planner
and
comprehensive
planning
and
I
think
we
are
making
a
concerted
effort
between
transportation
and
comprehensive
planning
to
sort
of
hold
hands
more
on
some
of
these
long-term
projects,
and
so
I've
been
working
with
Randall
and
his
team
to
really
review
all
the
work
they're
doing
through
the
transportation
master
plan
and
how
their
recommendations
might
be
impacting
some
land
use
in
certain
areas,
but
particularly
sub
community
plans
and
area
plans.
And
so
just
this
week
the
the
need
for
some
attention
on
the
North
Boulder
sub
community
plan
came
up.
C
O
So
so
one
of
the
high
high
impact
items
I
think
they
they
call
it
out
of
the
safe
streets.
Boulder
report
is,
is
working
on
speed
management
and
that's
just
getting
started,
but
it's
one
of
the
things
we've
heard
a
lot
from
the
community
and
if
you
go
on
be
heard,
Boulder
right
now,
there's
a
question
about
how
do
you
feel
what
do
you
think
about
speed
management?
So
that's
once
you
know
one
start
to
get
community
opinion,
but
yeah,
but
we're
hearing
a
lot
of
that.
The
speed
is
an
issue
for
a
technical
side.
O
C
You
and
then
just
the
last
comment.
I
had
I
would
really
like
to
encourage
your
curb
management
activities.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
misunderstanding
in
town
about
people's
right
to
park
in
front
of
their
house
and
extension
of
property
into
the
public
domain
along
streets
and
so
I
hope,
I
hope
that
will
be
a
big
element
in
the
future.
If
you're,
F,
yeah.
O
F
F
Couple
different
comments:
some
more
kind
of
visionary
high-end
things
been
some
that
are
more
practical
life.
I
think
that
if
Boulder
wants
to
show
real
leadership,
I'll
take
a
look
at
itself
and
realize
that
a
lot
of
our
our
l1
or
l2
jean
districts,
which
are
the
majority,
the
residential
land
use
in
the
city,
don't
look
any
different
from
Loveland
or
Greeley,
or
you
know
Norman
Oklahoma
and
it's
it's
a
real.
You
know.
F
Shame
I,
think
that
the
best
idea
is
you
know:
we've
had
so
far
for
speed
management
have
been
putting
speed
bumps
in
the
streets
which
make
plowing
difficult
and
really
aren't
fun
to
drive
over
and
I.
Think
that
you
know
when
you've
got
50
I
know,
Martin
acres
was
plaited
with
50
foot,
rights-of-way
and
all
of
the
secondary
streets
and
the
primary
streets
like
Martin
and
Nash
or
70.
There's
a
lot
of
pavement
and
a
low
density,
and
nobody
is
struggling
for
parking
in
the
entire
neighborhood
and
to
use
up
some
of
that.
F
F
I
don't
usually
want
to
go
for
a
stroll
with
my
family,
because
we've
got
a
walk
single
file.
So
if
you
want
to
help
people
with
their
health-
and
you
know
with
being
able
to
meet
with
their
friends
and
the
community,
you
know
three-foot
sidewalks,
don't
do
it
and
we
don't
need
the
space
that
those
sidewalks
are
allowing
in
the
pavement,
because
the
the
blacktop
is
just
wait
way
wider
than
it
has
to
be.
F
If
we
want
to
do
something
for
GHG
and
cutting
those
emissions,
you
know
or
maybe
just
sequestering
carbon,
we
could
be
planting
trees
in
the
parking
lane.
We
could
be
expanding.
You
know
the
amount
of
green,
that's
in
our
neighborhoods.
That
way.
You
know
we
could
be
putting
in
permeable
pavers.
We
could
be
doing
a
ton
of
things
we
could
be
using
vulnera
finds
and
making
people
wiggle
around
trees
we'd
be
planting
trees
in
the
middle
of
the
street,
just
because
it's
kind
of
fun
I
know
traffic
engineers
hate
that
stuff.
F
But
you
know,
I
never
saw
a
car
in
the
years.
I
lived
in
Lake
Tahoe,
which
is
full
of
trees
that
are
in
the
middle
of
the
street,
hit
one
of
the
trees,
not
even
on
Saturday
night,
when
the
casinos
were
going
so
I,
don't
I
think
we
can
be
creative,
I'd
like
to
see
that
and
and
then
I
think,
on
a
kind
of
a
high
level.
You
know
as
much
as
tab
might
never
be
allowed
to
talk
about
land-use
issues.
I
think
that
we
really
aren't
allowed
to
talk
about
transportation
issues.
F
I
think
we,
you
know,
we
get
applications
that
come
forward
and
staff
requires
a
dedicated
turn
lane
or
a
d-cell
Lane
or
something
to
support
the
project.
But
we
don't
really
talk
about
how
the
transportation
network
needs
to
be
changed
in
order
to
support
the
projects
that
come
in
front
of
us,
and
so
you
know
this
is
just
a
kind
of
general
comment
to
the
world,
because
I,
don't
I,
don't
have
a
recipe
for
how
this
gets
managed
or
changed
or
implemented.
F
But
you
know
imagine
if
you
know
I've
often
thought
that
it
would
be
a
really
special
thing
if
we
tried
to
handle
this
in
commuting
problem
by
providing
places
for
people
who
work
in
Boulder
to
live
and
a
great
place
to
do
that,
in
my
mind,
would
be
east
arapahoe
and
a
cool
way
to
do.
It
would
be
to
have
a
fixed
guideway
where
you
know,
there's
there's
this.
You
know
space-age.
F
You
know
rail
electric
vehicle,
that's
going
back
and
forth
and
is
free,
and
if
you
you
know,
maybe
you
you
have
the
building
developers
have
to
pay.
You
know
a
lot
of
money
into
this
Transportation
Fund
and
then
everybody
who
lives
in
the
apartments
gets
to
ride
for
free
and
now
you
can
start
to
think
about
a
world
where
you
know
we
heard
Sarah
say
that
she
lives
downtown
and
she
walks
everywhere.
Well,
if
I
lived
at
60th
and
Arapaho
and
I
could
get
into
I
could
get
to.
F
You
know
the
middle
of
town
in
six
minutes
or
11
minutes
on
a
free
quiet.
You
know
fixed
guideway,
where
I
can
read
or
do
whatever
I
want.
Maybe
I
don't
have
a
car
either.
You
know,
I
just
live
in
an
apartment
building
out
there
and
I.
You
know:
I
live
in
a
house
or
whatever
and
then
I
zip
into
town
and
then
I
walk,
wouldn't.
F
I'm
not
saying
that
that's
got
to
happen,
but
there's
no
way
for
planning
board
just
so
you
don't
feel
so
bad
on
tab.
That's
to
even
think
about
proposing
that
project
where
we
have
a
high
density
development.
You
know
in
the
East
End
of
a
rapaho
Avenue,
but
that's
supported
by
you,
know
quasi
regional
rail
network
or
link
that
makes
it
all
possible.
So
we
don't
really
get
a
chance
to
go
cross-disciplinary
either.
Mm-Hmm
I
agree.
B
With
all
that,
I
guess
I'll
call
myself
next,
that's
all
great,
and
after
we
do
get
the
kind
of
magic
transportation
I
wanted
to
make
the
little
Jetson
sound
I.
Think
that
would
be.
B
So
I
guess
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
did
John
and
I
both
got
to
go
and
walk
that
you
guys
put
on
with
tab
for
North,
Boulder
or
North
Broadway's
reconstruction
approach.
That
was
really
really
great
and
I
appreciate
you
guys
doing
stuff
like
that.
Really
informative,
isn't
was
fun
and
also
was
great
to
go
with
a
few
of
your
folks
with
fur
beer
afterwards,
which
is
good
and
name
names.
You're
on
the
television
which
has
I,
think
nine
people
watching
maybe
you'll,
hear
from
confident
already
did
come
out.
B
I
know
you
guys
got
a
feedback
loop
from
that,
but
kinda
to
share
with
the
board.
You
know
there
are
some
situations
there
where
they
are
fighting
conflicts
between
land
use
patterns
and
transportation,
desires
that
are
newer
right
so
and
I
wanted
to
kind
of
throw
a
specific
example
out
there
and
kind
of
weigh
in
on
it.
Actually,
because
I
know
you
had
feedback
from
businesses
that
you
know
parking
super
important
and
that
feedback
came
in
early
in
the
process
and
I
think
that's
a
voice.
B
So
what
we're
gonna
do
is
we're
gonna
skip
parking
for
that
block
where
the
buildings
got
built
in
the
wrong
place,
and
and
and
that's
what's
gonna
be
done,
and
maybe
the
way
you
compensate
for
that
is
by
making
a
strong
argument
for
how
much
more
rich
and
more
people
will
be
on
that
street
frontage
and
how
much
more
slowly
they'll
be
moving
and
how
much
more
inviting
it'll
be,
and
instead
of
it
being
just
sort
of
parking
edged
by
scary,
fast
buses.
It
could
be
something
much
much
better.
B
It
also
kind
of
came
up
that
the
drivers
are
expected
to
as
they
drive
down
the
road
key
into
where
there's
a
ramp
on
both
sides
and
say:
oh,
we
should
definitely
wait
for
the
pedestrians
there.
This
must
be
a
crosswalk,
instead
of
actually
them
keying
in
on
the
thing
that
they
used
to
Keeney
on
which
is
striping
across
the
crosswalk.
So
right
now
we
in
very
few
locations
in
my
neighborhood
I
know
you
guys
can
advocate
for
your
own
neighborhoods
or
places
where
you're
on
foot
or
biking
quite
a
bit.
B
You
know
Lee
Hill
doesn't
have
any
from
Broadway
to
the
death
of
Zone
on
28th
Street.
So
if
I
have
to
like
run
across
the
street,
to
get
a
beer
at
upslope
I
might
make
it
on
the
way
there,
but
on
the
way,
back,
it's
even
more
dangerous
right
so
different
time
a
day.
It's
a
different
time
of
day.
Exactly
that's.
A
B
Reason
the
places
like
that
are
distinct
opportunities
to
tip,
spend
just
a
small
amount
of
money
and
make
a
huge
improvement,
so
I
would
just
suggest
that
we
increase
or
decrease
or,
however,
you
talked
about
it-
the
category
of
street,
where
you
start
to
apply
those
things
at
every
opportunity.
You
know,
Yarmouth
has
two
over
the
entire
space
and
I
Drive
down
Yarmouth
and
an
hour
or
two
before
that
walk
I
was
driving
down
Yarmouth
tonight,
a
guy
stopped
at
the
crosswalk
and
he
he
started
to
go
across
and
he
saw
a
car
coming.
B
He
he
backed
up
onto
the
ramp
because
there
wasn't
striping
across
the
street
if
they
were
striving,
he
would
have
said.
Oh
I'm,
gonna,
crosswalk
and
I'm
allowed
to
be
here
so
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
failure
to
think
that
we
are
making
crosswalks
by
just
making
dips
in
the
sidewalks
on
each
side.
I
think
it's
super
important
that
we
do
this
self-assessment
for
accessibility,
I,
think
that
is
maybe
one
of
the
most
important
things
that
we
can
undertake.
B
So
I
just
want
to
underscore
that
I
would
love
to
see
a
I,
don't
know
how
hard
it
is
in
the
GS
world,
but
like
a
low-stress,
heatmap
I,
really
like
the
walkability
heatmap,
and
if
we
had
a
low
stress
heat
map
to
go
along
with
that,
that's
pretty
cool
they
map.
So
you
have
a
really
great
but
I
like
that.
One
too
I
think
it
might
help
communicate
to
the
people.
I
mean
those
heat
maps
have
become
such
a
great
tool
for
walkability,
your
Walk,
Score
or
different
things
like
that.
B
B
J
Conversation
I
think
it's
a
we're
all
going
to
participate
in
based
on
the
perspectives
and
experiences
that
we
have
and
I
think
that
I
know
from
my
own
personal,
take
on
the
community
benefits
conversation
I
very
much
want
those
benefits
to
be
quite
tangible,
and
it
seems
to
me,
based
on
what
you
all
are
working
on.
There's
some
very
tangible
community
benefits
that
you
might
put
on
on
such
a
wish
list
for
the
for
the
City
Council
conversation
yeah.
K
K
Amsterdam
town
on
it
and
I
spend
a
lot
of
time
in
Amsterdam.
So
that's
why
I'm
really
passionate
about
design
standards
for
bikeways,
nobody
wears
a
helmet
and
they
have
very
low
rates
of
injury
per
mile
ridden
and
it's
because
of
their
fantastically
designed
bike
infrastructure
that
you
were
talking
about
are
really
important
and
I'll
mention
yield.
Just
because
that's
a
big
thing
for
me
everywhere
you
go,
there's
always
the
yield
triangles.
So
everybody
knows
who
has
the
right-of-way
and
I
think
we're
missing.
K
K
With
pedestrian
lights
right,
the
pedestrian
lights
coming
on
first,
that
can
happen
for
bikes
as
well.
If
you
have
special
bike
lights
like
they
do
in
Holland,
you
can
actually
have
those
go
green
before
the
car
lights.
So
that's
a
stretch
goal
to
keep
in
mind
for
the
future,
so
those
are
really
great
ways
to
get.
You
know:
pedestrians
and
bikes
safely
into
the
intersection
before
the
cars
start
using
the
intersection
advisory
community
is
doing
great
work.
I
love,
the
low
stress
analysis,
Comfort
analysis
has
they've
been
doing.
K
K
K
Go
figure
that
out
and
let's
work
on
ebikes
so
as
in
terms
of
advanced
vehicle
options,
and
so
as
we
develop.
Those
bike
ways
need
to
be
bikes.
The
design
might
be
affected
a
little
bit,
but
e
bikes
really
create
an
opening
for
people
who
don't
feel
comfortable
going
out
and
sweating
and
struggling
and
all
day
and
making
six
stops
to
just
as
long
and
not
have
to
worry
so
I
think
it's
a
game
changer
for
people,
it's
gonna
get
more
people
comfortable
and
more
people
out
there.
I
just
bought
myself
at
60th
birthday
present.
K
I
would
say
a
large
majority
of
the
concerns
I
hear
from
the
community
involve
parking
and
transport
and
and
congestion
traffic
congestion
about
that,
because
they
know
how
addicted
our
culture
is
to
cars
and
they're
scared
about
vehicles
spilling
over
into
their
neighborhoods
and
parking
in
their
curbs
and
stuff,
and
the
design
of
that
exacerbates
those
concerns.
So
I
think
we
are
falling
short
on
communicating
with
the
public
and
I
know
that
it
is
hard
for
the
public
to
get
behind
paying
money.
K
Why
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
continue
to
think
about
how
we
communicate
and
I
think
the
TMP
is
doing
a
great
job
so
continuing
to
work
on
ways
to
do
that
would
be
my
recommendation
and
I
think
I
covered
all
the
big
items
I
wanted
to
cover.
So
thanks
so
much
for
a
very
great
presentation
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
the
final
product
yeah.
B
Laughs
because
you
sort
of
nailed
it
out
of
the
park
that
was
really
really
great
and
I
want
to
just
like
you
know,
everyone
did
kind
of
get
to
a
traffic.
Calming
point.
I
want
to
highlight
that
again
there
were
a
lot
of
traffic
calming
ideas
that
came
out
the
form-based
code
process
that
were
at
that
time,
not
in
compliance
with
the
designing
construction
standard,
so
they
were
all
discarded
from
the
adopted
area
plan.
B
I
would
love
to
see
somebody
go
back
and
pull
those
back
in
and
start
to
try
to
build
them
into
the
process.
There's
a
lot
of
really
good
ideas
in
there
and
I
live
in
a
neighborhood
where
the
cars
that
are
parked
are
closer
together
and
the
complaints
that
I
hear
from
people
is
like.
Oh
man,
I
have
to
slow
down
to
pass
another
car
yeah.
It's
actually
totally
great
news.
It's
wonderful
and
I
feel
cool
with
my
little
kids
being
able
to
cross
that
Street
and
not
get
smashed.
It
works
great.
B
The
fire
guys
don't
like
zami
re,
Easy
Rider,
but
where
they
turn
it's
I,
get
that,
but
the
straight
ones
work
pretty
good.
So
maybe
we'll
have
a
vision,
one
day
of
having
an
Amsterdam
like
streetscape,
where
everyone's
on
their
bikes,
with
no
helmets
in
there
have
big
baskets
full
of
fruit
and
vegetables,
sticking
out
of
them
and
health
upright
and
happy,
and
healthy
and
they're
all
on
protect
protected
bike
lanes.
B
B
C
This
is
a
question
for
staff,
actually
I've
gotten
some
remarks
from
folks
who
are
concerned
about
what's
happening
at
the
Googleplex
in
terms
of
paths
being
closed
off
and
not
not
being
able
to
walk
tour
bicycle
through
and
I
wondered
if
you
were
aware
of
that
or
if
you
might
be
able
to
look
into
it
because
I
think
that's
not
what
was
intended
when
we
discussed
it
here.